To: The Bureau of Internal Revenue
Robert D. AhNee, District Director
1301 Clay Street, Suite 800-S.
Oakland, CA 94612

FORWARD AND ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUIRED.

Dear Robert D. AhNee, District Director:

Please read this letter and Forward it and the enclosed Third F.O.I.A. Request to Nadine Addison for action.

I will no longer communicate with any officer/employee/personnel/person of the The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service, a.k.a. I.R.S., a.k.a. IRS) except in writing over each person's valid lawful signature.

Because of documented specific prior actions of purported members of this organization, this letter is subject to Title 18, United States Code, Sections 1341 and 1346. Title 18, United States Code (1999), § 1346 reads:

For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" [nt.: in Title 18, U.S.C., section 1341] includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

I have tried diligently and in good faith for several years now to determine and understand the true nature of my relationship with The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service) and, to the best of my knowledge, The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service) is the only party to this relationship who has the information I require.

I was delivered a letter (dated June 22, 2000, identified as QA:D-F-94-2000-3563) from Nadine Addison, Disclosure Officer, on June 24, 2000.
She requests an extension of time to deliver the documents I requested through my F.O.I.A. Request Number 2 of May 22, 2000.
I was delivered a second letter (dated JUN 28 2000, and also identified as QA:D-F-94-2000-3563) in partial performance of my F.O.I.A requirement on or about June 30, 2000. "Partial" in this instance means "woefully inadequate".
This is my Notice of Intent to Appeal both letters.

"You are required to satisfactorily complete this Requirement and to deliver the Record(s) covered by this Requirement within twenty (20) business days. I grant your organization an additional ten (10) days, as needed, for you to access out-of-district information. Your failure to complete and deliver this Requirement or any portion thereof in a timely manner, and/or a bare pro forma denial of this Requirement, is(are) NOT acceptable action(s) by the now-discovered-to-be The Bureau of Internal Revenue." (my second F.O.I.A Request).

From the behavior of The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service) in knowingly and willfully withholding information which may be vital to my interests, I am entitled to the Presumumption that The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service) is actively seeking to prevent me from discovering information that I need to know to make informed decisions.

Since The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service) has consistently maintained without Proof that the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" is a "taxpayer", I reserve the right to agree with it and apply the remedy provided in Title 26, UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED, Section 7433 (a) and (b), for the relief of 'taxpayers' from wrongful collection of Federal tax.

I do not need to remind you and your organization (since you are all presumed to know) of these holdings of the United States Supreme Court, but I will:

The Constitution constrains governmental action "by whatever instruments or in whatever modes that action may be taken." Ex parte Virginia, 100 US 339, 346-347, 25 L Ed 676 (1880). And under whatever congressional label. ...
...Facing the question of Amtrak's status for the first time, we conclude that it is an agency or instrumentality of the United States for the purpose of individual rights guaranteed against the Government by the Constitution. ...
Even Congress itself appeared to acknowledge, at least until recent years, that Government-created and -controlled corporations were part of the Government. The Government Corporation Control Act of 1945, discussed above, which brought to an end an era of uncontrolled growth of Government corporations, provided that, without explicit congressional authorization, no corporation should be acquired or created by "any officer or agency of the Federal Government or by any Governmental corporation for the purpose of acting as an agency or instrumentality of the United States ...." sec 304(a), 59 Stat, at 602 (emphasis added). That was evidently intended to restrict the creation of all Government-controlled policy-implementing corporations, and not just some of them. And the companion provision that swept away many of the extant corporations said that no wholly owned government corporation created under state law could continue "as an agency or instrumentality of the United States," sec. 304(b), 59 Stat, at 602. ...
It surely cannot be that government, state or federal, is able to evade the most solemn obligations imposed in the constitution by simply resorting to the corporate form. ... (emphasis added) Lebron v. National R. Passenger Corp. (1995), 513 U.S. 574, 130 L.Ed.2d 902, 914-923, 115 S. Ct. 961.

No man in this country is so high that he is above the law. No officer of the law may set that law at defiance, with impunity. All the officers of the government, from the highest to the lowest, are creatures of the law and are bound to obey it.
It is the only supreme power in our system of government, and every man who, by accepting office, participates in its functions, is only the more strongly bound to submit to that supremacy, and to observe the limitations which it imposes upon the exercise of the authority which it gives. ...
Shall it be said ... that the courts cannot give remedy when the citizen has been deprived of his property by force, his estate seized and converted to the use of the government without any lawful authority, without any process of law, and without any compensation, because the President has ordered it and his officers are in possession?
If such be the law of this country, it sanctions a tyranny which has no existence in the monarchies of Europe, nor in any other government which has a just claim to well-regulated liberty and the protection of personal rights.
United States v. Lee (1882), 106 U.S. 196, 220-221; 27 L.Ed. 171, 1 S.Ct. 240.

I Certify, under the penalty for perjury in the Law of the United States of America, that I have read the foregoing Document and it is True and Accurate.

Signature:______________________________________________

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III