To: Freedom of Information Appeal
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Ben Franklin Station
P.O. Box 929
Washington, D.C. 20044

FORWARD AND ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUIRED.

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:

1. This is my timely and legally sufficient Notice of Appeal and Appeal of my Third Freedom of Information Act Request, dated July 3, 2000, (hereafter: my ltr) attached and incorporated in full herein.
Also attached and incorporated herein is Proof of Service verification for said letter.
Also attached and incorporated in full herein is the letter from Nadine Addison (hereafter: Addison ltr) identified as QA:D-F-94-2000-3883 (dated JUL 17, 2000, postmarked JUL 18'00, and delivered to me on or about July 20, 2000) .

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."

"[a] In response to items #G and #H, the purpose of the Freedom of Information Act is to allow access by the public to disclosable agency records. [b] The Act does not require agencies to respond to interrogatories, [c] to create records not already in existence or [d] engage in doctrinal discussions with requestors. [e] The Act does not require agencies to do any original research in response to questions asked in a request or [f] conduct research to determine which resolution, decision, or statute you seek. [g] Neither does the Act require an agency to respond to statements which appear to be more appropriately addressed in a judicial proceeding. [h] Information may be researched on the Internal Revenue Service web site at http://www.irs.gov. [i] Please be advised that a request under the Freedom of Information Act in no way postpones or delays administrative, examination, investigation, or collection action."

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. Internal Revenue Service of my requirement:
a. Unless I overlooked something, my Requirement F.4.a. (AMDISA and ACTRA Record(s)) appears to have been completely ignored (Addison ltr, 4th para.). The Bureau of Internal Revenue a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service has not validly claimed any statutory exemption. Complete the Requirement.
b. Unless I overlooked something, my Requirements F.4.c., d., e., f. seems to have been completely ignored (Addison ltr, 4th para.). The Bureau of Internal Revenue a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service has not validly claimed any statutory exemption. Complete the Requirement. In the alternative, The Bureau of Internal Revenue a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service agrees that no Form(s) 17 have been lawfully created; no Form(s) 21 have been lawfully created; no Form(s) 69 have been lawfully created; no Form(s) 647 have been lawfully created.

4. After partially completing and attempting-to-complete two prior F.O.I.A. requests seems an odd and untimely time for Nadine Addison to attempt to maintain the position: "...However, to constitute a valid request under FOIA, certain requirements must be met. Those requirements are outlined in the enclosure. Please note that one of the items is a firm commitment to pay fees for search and duplication." (Addison ltr, 7th para.) If my two previous F.O.I.A Requests were supposedly invalid, why did this Nadine Addison attempt to complete them? Nadine Addison has, by her actions, previously Consented/Assented to my two prior F.O.I.A. Requests and to the third one; any Objection now is barred by that Assent/Consent. I believe that my paragraph D properly and adequately fulfills the statutory requirement.

Neither Robert D. Ahnee (if he really exists) supposedly performing duties as "District Director", nor Nadine Addison, supposedly performing duties as a "Disclosure Officer", appears to have any statutory discretion to decide which Record(s) in the possession and/or under the control of The Bureau of Internal Revenue a.k.a. Internal Revenue Service are disclosable. Neither has properly claimed any valid statutory exemption from Disclosure for any Record(s). The Freedom of Information Act, as written, favors Disclosure whenever there is a question about Disclosability.

5.a. You are presumed to know this information, so I will simply 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.

5.c. You are also presumed to know and understand that "unlawful" means "criminal".

6.a. Properly fulfilling this, my third F.O.I.A. request, was supposedly part of Nadine Addison's designated ministerial duty as "Disclosure Officer" and properly fulfilling this Appeal is now part of your ministerial duty. Please fulfill your duty properly and timely.

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. 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, or refusal, to fulfill 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. Internal Revenue Service to Accept Estoppel against itself in any further actions involving the information and Record(s) I have legally requested.

8. I have found no section in the statutes relating to the UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE which requires that I use any "ZIP" coding whatsoever, so I choose to not do so. "Properly labeled mail to the mailing location as stated at the top of this Requirement" (my ltr, J.2.) does not include ZIP (Zone Improvement Plan) coding. I do not care if, or why, you believe you (or I) must use ZIP coding; nor do I care that ZIP coding purports to make the mail move faster. Produce and Deliver any statute or regulation of the U.S.P.S that states that I must use ZIP coding or stop doing it.

9. Since I am not a trained Attorney, if I have overlooked or forgotten anything material in this Appeal, I Object to whatever I have overlooked or forgotten. I do not waive any available Objection.

10. I Reserve the Right to consolidate the judicial Review of my three Appeals into one Cause of Action under 5 U.S.C.A. (2000) 552(a)(4)(B), in a "district court of the United States" convenient to me, should said action 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