From: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755 U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California, United States of America
No telephone service maintained.
July 26, 2000.

To: Freedom of Information Appeal
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Ben Franklin Station
Post Office Box 929
Washington, District of Columbia 20044

FORWARD AND ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUIRED.

Notice of Second FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT APPEAL
(per Title 5, United States Code, Section 552 and per Notice 393 (Rev. 4-94)).

ADMINISTRATIVE AND JUDICIAL NOTICE REQUIRED.

Notice:
To any and all Officers and employees of the now-discovered-to be The Bureau of Internal Revenue a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service:


Based on my discovery of this information on May 8, 2000:
"BY ORDER OF THE SECRETARY OF THE TREASURY ... 1. The Bureau of Internal Revenue shall hereafter be known as the Internal Revenue Service." (emphasis added) http://www.ustreas.gov/regs/to150-06.html [as of May 8, 2000], and on my discovery of this information on May 12, 2000: "4. Denies that the Internal Revenue Service is an agency of the United States Government but admits that the United States of America would be proper party to this action. ..." (emphasis added) http://www.lawresearch-registry.org/irsnara0.htm [as of May 12, 2000], I may reasonably Expect, Require, and Demand your organization's meticulous, scrupulous, and timely completion of each and every element of this Appeal.

Because of documented specific prior actions of purported members of this organization, this Appeal 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.

Dear Appeals Officer:

This is timely and legally sufficient Notice of my Appeal of my second Freedom of Information Act Request, dated May 22, 2000, attached and incorporated in full herein. Also attached and incorporated in full herein is my Notice of Fault; Notice of Intent to Appeal, dated July 3, 2000.
Also attached and incorporated herein are Proof of Service verifications for both my letters.
Also attached and incorporated in full herein are the two letters delivered to me: (1) identified as QA:D-F-94-2000-3563 (dated June 22, 2000, postmarked JUN 22'00, and delivered to me on or about June 24, 2000) and (2) also identified as QA:D-F-94-2000-3563 (dated JUN 28 2000, postmarked JUN 28'00, and delivered to me on or about June 30, 2000) from Nadine Addison)(hereafter Addison ltr).

Department of the Treasury--Internal Revenue Service Notice 393 (Rev. 4-94) reads, in relevant part: "You may file an appeal with the Internal Revenue Service within 35 days after we (1) determine to withhold records, (2) determine that no records exist, or (3) deny a fee waiver or a favorable fee category. If some records are released at a later date, you may file within 35 days after the date the last records were released."

1. I do not know how to explain this situation.
As documented in my letters attached and incorporated herein, I have given Nadine Addison, under her statutory duty in her capacity as "Disclosure Officer", every reasonable opportunity to perform and she simply hasn't. If I cannot receive the appropriate information I requested from this Appeal, I will have to accept the Default of Nadine Addison and through her, the Default of The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service).

2. I am appealing the implicit Determination, "(1) ...to withhold records," represented by the unresponsive non-completion by The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service) (Addison ltr) of my requirement:
a. Item F. "A search of Northern California District files has found no account in the Excess Collection File as of this date." (Addison ltr, 3d para.) implies that the other Districts I required to be searched were not. Please do so and send me the results immediately.
b. Item H. This item is more than reasonably specific and requires more specific answers than, "The requested data, to the extent it may exist, is on the transcripts." (Addison ltr, 4th para.) Please do so and send me the results immediately.

3. I am appealing the implicit Determination that "(2) ...no records exist," represented by the unresponsive non-completion by The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service) of my requirement:
a. Nadine Addison is completely unresponsive to my requirements for Record(s) responsive to my items H (Addison ltr, 10th para.), I.1. through I.4 (Addison ltr, 5th para.), and K (Addison ltr, 10th para.). I do not understand how your organization can claim to have a lawful existence within The State of California without maintaining and knowing the contents of the required Document(s). If the Director of The Northern California District does not want to release said Document(s) after lawful request, that is just too bad. He does not, in the Record, seem to have any valid reason for such action.
Nadine Addison, performing duties as a "Disclosure Officer", does not have the discretion to decide which Record(s) in the possession and/or under the control of The Bureau of Internal Revenue are disclosable and also has not properly claimed any valid exemption from Disclosure for any Record(s). The Freedom of Information Act, as written, favors Disclosure whenever there is a question about Diclosability.
Shall I simply accept the Determination by Default that said Record(s) do not exist, conclude that The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service) has no lawful existence in California, and govern my interactions with The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service) according to that official Determination?

b. Nadine Addison is completely unresponsive to my item L. (Addison ltr, 7th para.). Again the phrasing of the answer, "...a search of the Northern California District files has found no responsive documents.", implies that the other Districts I required to be searched were not. Please do so and send me the results immediately.

c. Nadine Addison is completely unresponsive to my item M. (Addison ltr, 8th para.). "...a search of the Northern California District files has found no responsive documents." , implies that the other Districts I required to be searched were not. Please do so and send me the results immediately. "Individual Master File (IMF) accounts are stored at the Martinsburg, West Virginia Computing Center (MCC)." is nice to know, but irrelevant if the Northern California District Office has access to said Record(s).

5. Although you are presumed to know this information, I will remind you of the regulations published in "Internal Revenue Manual" available on-line at http://www.irs.ustreas.gov/prod/bus_info/tax_pro/irm-part/part01/30436a.html#ss17 [as of July 19, 2000]:

[1.3] 13.4.3 (08-19-1998)
Prompt Response
1. Every effort should be made to meet the statutory 20 working day time limit for response. This effectively provides 30 calendar days for responding to requesters.

[[1.3] 13.4 (08-19-1998)
Processing Requests
5. Secure and copy, if necessary, records involved in the request. (See subsection 13.7.4.) Requesters should not be diverted to various public sources in lieu of processing requests.

EXAMPLE:
Requesters should not be referred to courthouses for liens or copies of judicial tax decisions, to the Federal Register for copies of our systems of records notices, or to public libraries for designated Code or regulation sections.
6. Properly completing this F.O.I.A. request was part of Nadine Addison's designated duty as "Disclosure Officer" and properly fulfilling this Appeal is now part of your job. Please do your job properly and timely.
I believe in the principle of "fair warning", so:
Specifically, courts have shown no hesitation to review cases in which a violation of the Constitution, statutes, or regulations is alleged. See, e.g., Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S.579, 582, 78 S.Ct. 433, 2 L.Ed.2d 503 (1958); Huff v. Secretary of the Navy, 188 U.S.App.D.C. 26, 30-33, 575 F.2d 907, 911-14 (1978); Mindes v. Seaman, 453 F.2d 197, 200 (5th Cir. 1971). It is a basic tenet of our legal system that a government agency is not at liberty to ignore its own laws and that agency action in contravention of applicable statutes and regulations is unlawful. See Vitarelli v. Seaton, 359 U.S. 535, 539, 79 S.Ct. 968, 3 L.Ed.2d 1012 (1959); Service v. Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 379, 77 S.Ct. 1152, 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1957). The military departments enjoy no immunity from this proscription. [Cites omitted.] It is the duty of the federal courts to inquire whether an action of a military agency conforms to the law, or is instead arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to the statutes and regulations governing that agency. See, e.g., Vander-Molen v. Stetson, 187 U.S.App.D.C. 183, 190, 571 F.2d 617, 624 (1977); Powell v. Zuckert, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 55, 61-62, 366 F.2d. 634, 640-41 (1966); Dunmar v. Ailes, 121 U.S.App.D.C. 45, 47, 348 F.2d 51, 53 (1965). The logic of these cases derives from the self-evident proposition that the Government must obey its own laws.
(emphasis added) Dilley v. Alexander (1979), 603 F.2d 914,920.
7. In the light of the above citation, I do not understand how The Commissioner of Internal Revenue or The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service) can even conceive of maintaining the position that it is somehow reasonable for his/its officers/employees to fail, or refuse, to properly perform their respective duties and to force requestors such as myself to sue The Commissioner of Internal Revenue or The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service) to compel him/it to perform a statutory duty which his/its officers/employees are already being compensated to do.
Is there some reason why that behavior, or pattern of behavior, is not prima facie evidence of willful misconduct by his/its officers/employees in relation to private Requestors, prima facie evidence of Fraud by his/its officers/employees against The Commissioner of Internal Revenue and/or The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service), and prima facie evidence of noncompetence to hold a particular job position by the officer/employee(s) engaged in such behavior?
If you and/or any other officer/employee of The Bureau of Internal Revenue has, or feels you should have, any problem whatsoever with faithfully and honestly performing the duties of your Office, Position, Rank, job, employment, etc., I will be happy to accept your signed 'Letter of Resignation' and will promptly Forward it to The Secretary of the Department of the Treasury for his appropriate action.

8. You are required to satisfactorily complete this Appeal and to deliver the Record(s) covered by this Appeal within twenty (20) business days. Your failure to complete and deliver this Appeal, or any portion thereof, in a timely manner, and/or a bare pro forma denial of this Appeal constitute the Agreement of The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service) to Accept Estoppel against itself in any further actions involving the information and Record(s) I requested. [If this 'adhesion' and 'presumptive' b*llsh*t is available to The Bureau of Internal Revenue (a.k.a. The Internal Revenue Service), it is also available to me under the principles of Equity; i.e., if a Party seeks the benefits of Equity, it must also grant Equity to the other Party.]

9. Should I do not receive a fully responsive answer to this, my Second Appeal, I suppose I will have to send copies of this, and my prior, Appeal to David C. Williams, The Inspector General of Tax Administration as part of my exhaustion of my administrative Remedies.

10. I Reserve the Right to consolidate all my Appeals into one Cause of Action, should that become necessary.

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

END

[BACK to My Work][Come Visit My Home Page]

E-mail me here: