From: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755, U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California, United States of America
No telephone service maintained.
March 14, 2000.

To: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
Being, in their Official Capacities:
KATHLEEN CONNELL
DEAN F. ANDAL
B. TIMOTHY GAGE
9645 Butterfield Way
Sacramento, CA 95827

Dear Lady and Gentlemen:

Declarant, ___________________________________________ a natural-born white Man, one of the People of the United States of America, and currently one of the People of the State of California; with all due Respect and in full Good Faith, does Declare and Affirm that:

A. The California Legislature has declared that the People of the State of California are sovereign:

THE GOVERNMENT CODE (1999), § 54950:
"In enacting this chapter, the Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards and councils and the other public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business. It is the intent of the law that their actions be taken openly and that their deliberations be conducted openly.
"The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them. The people, in delegating authority, do not give their public servants the right to decide what is good for the people to know and what is not good for them to know. The people insist on remaining informed so that they may retain control over the instruments they have created."(emphasis added).

"It is a well-recognized rule that for purposes of statutory construction the codes are to be regarded as blending into each other and constituting but a single statute. (Proctor v. Justice's Court (1940), 209 Cal. 39, 43 [285 P. 213]; County of Butte v. Merrill (1903), 141 Cal. 396, 399 [74 P. 1036]; Clarke v. Mead (1894), 102 Cal. 516, 520 [39 P. 862].)" In re Porterfield (1946), 28 Cal.2d 91, 168 P.2d 706.

"Section 96.5. Perversion or obstruction of justice by judicial officer, court commissioner or referee.
(a) Every judicial officer, court commissioner, or referee who commits any act that he or she knows perverts or obstructs justice is guilty of a public offense punishable by imprisonment in a county jail for not more than one year.
(b) Nothing in this section prohibits prosecution under paragraph (5) of subdivision (a) of Section 182 of the Penal Code or any other law." (Amended by Stats. 1999, c. 853 (S.B. 832, sec. 7.) effective January 1, 2000.)

"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 [in original]). 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), 130 L.Ed.2d 902, 914-923.

For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.

1.a. This letter is a timely and sufficient response to the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (hereafter FTB) letter of 03/02/00 identified as FTB 4744A (REV 08-1999) PAGE 1 and PAGE 2, which was apparently mailed through the mistake or error of the California FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.
The FRANCHISE TAX BOARD is in Error.

I am returning that legally invalid Document because it simply is not Fair-on-its-Face. If it is supposed to be a Notice, so far as I can tell, on-its-face it Notices nothing.
I have marked it:

1.b. I do not understand why the FTB persists in mailing letters in pursuit of an issue which has already been Administratively Determined adversely to the FTB by its own default before the California BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.
1.c. The FTB, in the person of one MARK McEVILLY, was offered the formal and official opportunity before the California BOARD OF EQUALIZATION to prove the existence of the fictitious entity "THOMAS M. THORNHILL, III" on August 27, 1998.
See the Official Transcript (incorporated by reference): Appeal of Thomas M. Thornhill, III, 97A-1336, August 27, 1997, pp. 4-5:

"... For the Record. I am not an attorney. I am not an accountant. I am not the executor of the state (sic) of this dummy [identified as THOMAS M. THORNHILL, III], I am not the fiduciary For (sic) this dummy [identified as THOMAS M. THORNHILL, III] over here.
"You people claim this dummy exists. So, Mr. McEvilly Over (sic) here is going to prove that.
"And until he proves that, I don't want to hear from you people."

2.a. The said Document is not a timely Response/Answer under the ADMINISTRATIVE PROCEDURE ACT to my letter of December 21, 1999.
2.b. Said Document does not appear to constitute any valid Claim or Cause of Action and does not seem to state any Demand that I may act on.
2.c. According to CALJUR 3d, NAMES: "R. Lubiens" is not even a legal name.

I request Administrative Discovery of the true full legal name of "R. Lubiens".
I request Administrative Disclosure of any Evidence which proves that "R. Lubiens" actually is an employee of the FTB.

2.d. From the State Bar Membership On Line website http://www.calsb.org/MM/SBMBRSHP.HTM, the State Bar of California does not claim "R. Lubiens" as an active member of the Bar.

I request Administrative Disclosure of any Delegation of Authority which would allow "R. Lubiens" to represent the FTB without in the process practicing law without a license.

2.e. This Document purports to be a FTB standard Form, but is unresponsive to the issues I raised.

I request Administrative Discovery of the full legal name of the California-licensed Attorney (John Doe 1) who actually wrote this Document.
I request the Administrative Discovery of any Evidence which Proves that (John Doe 1) has any legitimate relationship with or to the FTB.

Specific objectons:

3.1. First paragraph- I do not know enough to Admit of Deny these statements.
One of the unfortunate aspects of our society is that Attorneys do not understand the distinction betweeen "legal" and "lawful".

"Lawful. The principal distinction between the terms "lawful" and "legal" is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is "lawful" implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is "legal" implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense "illegal" approaches the meaning of "invalid." For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word "lawful" more clearly implies an ethical content than does "legal." The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word "legal" is used as the synonym of "constructive," which "lawful" is not. Thus "legal fraud" is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. "Lawful fraud" would be a contradiction of terms. Again, "legal" is used as the antithesis of "equitable," thus, we speak of "legal assets," "legal estate," etc., but not of "lawful assets," or "lawful estate." But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a "lawful" writ, warrant, or process is the same as a "legal" writ, warrant, or process." BLACK'S LAW DICTIONARY, Revised 4th Edition (1968), p. 1032.

I request Administrative Discovery/Disclosure of:
a. The complete text of each and every Congressionally-ratified International Treaty/Agreement/Understanding/Contract relating to taxation under which the FTB claims authority in relation to me.
b. The complete text of each and every California-Legislature-ratified Multistate Taxing Agreement/Understanding/Contract relating to taxation under which the FTB claims authority in relation to me.
c. The complete text of the official Determination, together with any and all supporting Documents, by the FTB of the deemed legal Domicile of each of the following entities: "Thomas Murrell Thornhill III", "THOMAS M. THORNHILL, III", "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III", and "T.M. THORNHILL III". In other words, what "state", "State", "STATE", "country", "Nation", etc., has the FTB formally Determined that each of these entities has as a legal Domicile and Why?
d. The complete description and designation of each and every Franchise that the FTB claims I am exercising within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
e. If said Documents do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

3.2. Second paragraph- I Deny these statements.
The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "Note that a written contract between you and the department is not required..." may be literally True, but is misleading.
My experience has shown that every interaction I have with THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA requires a signed Application or Affidavit. While those Applications (supposed "grants" of "privelege") may not be construed as "contracts", they are treated as binding agreements by THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, which seeks to, and intends to, benefit from them. Even the FTB Form 540 requires a signature before it becomes valid.

However, there must be valid written and signed contract(s) between the FTB and each of the other contracting parties before the FTB can have legal standing to perform its stated function of administering the tax laws.

I request Administrative Discovery of:
a. The complete text, including the signature page(s), of each and every current and relevant Agreement/Contract/Understanding/Undertaking/other similar Document whereby the Official members of the FTB undertake/contract/commit to implement each respective Treaty/Agreement/Undertaking mentioned in 3.1. above within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
b. The complete text of the official Determination, together with its supporting Documents, whereby the FTB has lawfully made me a Party to the above-mentioned Agreement/Contract/Understanding/Undertaking/etc.
c. If said Documents do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

3.3. Third paragraph- I Deny these statements.
a. This paragraph appears to be a statement of the FTB's willful and knowing misinterpretation of REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE, section 17041, which actually reads, in relevant part:

(a)(1) There shall be imposed for each taxable year upon the entire taxable income of every resident of this state, except the head of a household as defined in Section 17042, taxes in the following amounts and at the following rates upon the amount of taxable income: ... (emphasis added)

I request Administrative Discovery of:
1. Each and every valid Document by which the FTB has Determined that I have any taxable income for 1998.
2. If said Documents do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

b. Further, REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE, section 18051, actually reads, in relevant part:

(a) Every individual taxable under Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001) shall make a return to the Franchise Tax Board, stating specifically the items of the individual's gross income from all sources and the deductions and credits allowable, if the individual has any of the following for the taxable year:
(1) An adjusted gross income from all sources in excess of eight thousand dollars ($8,000), if single...

c.1. The cited case (Appeal of Beldon Katleman, SBE, Oct. 17, 1980) is not available in my local law library or on the Internet, so I have no knowledge of what it really says.
The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "Your presence within this state is sufficient to generate the tax reporting obligations..." is false under current conditions when compared to the FTB's own current Documents:
c.1.A. (From Personal Income Tax Booklet 1998 page 31 (225)): Instructions for Form 540- California Resident Income Tax Return reads:

These instructions are based on the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) as of January 1, 1998, and the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC).

---

Before you Begin You must complete your federal income tax return (Form 1040, 1040A, 1040EZ or federal TeleFile Tax Record) before you begin your California Form 540. You will use your federal income tax form to complete your Form 540. ...

These documents taken together necessarily imply that there must be an Agreement/Contract in force between the United States and the FTB before the FTB has standing to administer the "federal" program.
I request Administrative Discovery of each and every Agreement/Contract for the administration of the tax laws which was in force and effect between the FTB and either The United States and/or the Internal Revenue Service in 1998.
If said Document(s) do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

c.1.B. It is my understanding that the FTB holds no valid Document(s) proving the "presence within this state" of "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" for the "tax year" 1998.

I request Administrative Discovery/Disclosure of the following Documents in the possession of the FTB which establish my "presence within the state":
1. Any valid "W-2", "W-4" or equivalent in the name "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" for 1998.
2. Any valid "Form 1099" or equivalent in the name "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" for 1998.
3. Any valid Fictitious Business Statement recorded in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in the name "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" for 1998.
4. Any valid Voter Registration Affidavit recorded in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in the name "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" for 1998.
5. Any valid CALIFORNIA DRIVER LICENSE issued in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in the name "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" for 1998.
6. If said Documents do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

c.2. The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "Thus, any claim of exemption from personal state income tax is void" is false.
Obviously, any single Man with an adjusted gross income of less than $8,000 is exempt from personal state income tax under REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE, section 18051.

I request Administrative Discovery of each and every valid Document in the possession of the FTB which Proves that I had any "adjusted gross income" in 1998.
If said Document(s) do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

c.3. The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "As a taxpayer, defined under R&T Code secton 17004, you may be held liable..." is false.
Section 17004 does not stand alone, but must be read together with section 17005 and section 17007 before one can even begin to figure out what a "taxpayer" is.
To my knowledge, I have never requested a formal Determination by the FTB, or the BOARD OF EQUALIZATION that I am, or am not, a "taxpayer", so the FTB has no formal basis for this Presumption.
I did request such a Determination from the Secretary of the Treasury several years ago nad have yet to receive said Determination.

I request Administrative Discovery of each and every valid Document in the possession of the FTB which Proves that I was a "taxpayer" in 1998.
If said Document(s) do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

I further request a full formal Administrative Hearing before the elected members of THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD to Determine whether I am or am not, in fact, a STATE OF CALIFORNIA "taxpayer".

3.4. Fourth paragraph- I Deny these statements.
The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "As stated above, California law defines who is required to file a tax return, as well as tax liability obligation." is false.
The third paragraph, as has been demonstrated, clearly establishes the FTB's position of willful and knowing mis-interpretation and mis-application of the statutes of California.

3.5. The fifth paragraph- I Deny these statements.

a. I request Administrative Discovery of each and every valid Document in the possession of the FTB which Proves that I received compensation within or from THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1998.
b. I request Administrative Discovery of each and every valid Document in the possession of the FTB which Proves that I had an employer within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1998.
c. I request Administrative Discovery of each and every valid Document in the possession of the FTB which Proves that I owned a business within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1998.
d. I request Administrative Discovery of each and every valid Document in the possession of the FTB which Proves that I owned investments within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1998.
e. If said Documents do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

3.6. The sixth paragraph- I Deny these statements.

The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "Based on a review of your file, you are subject to the state's filing requirements." is probably false. I have not been provided with an opportunity to review or examine that file.
a. I request Administrative Discovery of the entire contents of said file together with each and every valid Document in the possession of the FTB which Proves that I was in fact "subject to the state's filing requirements" in 1998.
b. If said Documents do not exist, I request an Official Admission of that Fact.

c. I have not had time to read the cases cited.

I request an extention of time to respond so that I may understand the issues the FTB has raised.
I reserve any necessary objection until such time as I have read said cites.

3.7. The seventh paragraph (the first paragraph after the citations)- I Deny these statements.
The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "Please note that the failure to timely file required tax returns will result in assessment and collection actions, ..." is false.
a.

There is in the state government, in the Agriculture and Services Agency, a Franchise Tax Board consisting of the State Controller, the Director of Finance and the Chairman of the State Board of Equalization. The Franchise Tax Board is the successor to, and is vested with, all the duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities, and jurisdiction of the Franchise Tax Commissioner, but the statutes and laws under which that office existed and all laws prescribing the duties, powers, purposes, responsibilities and jurisdiction of that office, together with all lawful rules and regulations established thereunder, are expressly continued in force.

Sec. 22 The franchise tax commissioner, herein referred to, shall be appointed by the director of the department of finance, the controller of the state and the chairman of the stte board of equalization, who are authorized to provide him with such assistants as they may deem necessary to carry out its provisions; and he shall serve for such period, and for such compensation, and under such conditions, as they may prescribe.
He shall have power, and it shall be his duty, to administer this act, and to prescribe all such rules and regulations as are necessary and reasonable to carry out its provisions; and said commissioner and the state board of equalization, for the purposes of administering their duties under this act, each shall have the powers conferred upon said board by section 3669e of the Political code of this state.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (2000) Artile 13, section 26 reads:
Sec. 26 (a) Taxes on or measured by income may be imposed on persons, corporations or other entities as prescribed by law.

FOR THE RECORD in plain English:
a.1. "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" was not an Officer or employee of either THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or THE UNITED STATES in 1998.
a.2."THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" was not an Officer of any Corporation chartered by either THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or THE UNITED STATES in 1998.
a.3. So far as I have been able to determine, "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" is a fictitious entity created by Procuration by the bank I use, for its own purposes. That bank was upset some years ago when I cancelled the Account Signature Card bearing my signature after I discovered that Procuration. It was more upset when I created a new Signature Card endorsed "without prejudice".
a.4. So far as I know "THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" was not engaged in business in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1998 and did not exercise any Franchise within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1998.

b.1. Even if "THOMAS M. THORNHILL, III"/"THOMAS M. THORNHILL III" did have a valid tax liability in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and/or THE UNITED STATES in 1998, I am not the Resident Agent, Withholding Agent, or representative in any capacity whatsoever, for that/those fictitious entity(ies) and I do not know who is.
b.2. I believe that it is Legally impossible for me to file a return on behalf of an entity that I no longer have any reason to believe lawfully exists.
"The law never requires impossibilities." THE CIVIL CODE (2000), section 3531.

c.1. I do not Consent to THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD officers or employees lying to me either by commission or by omission.
c.2. I do not Consent to THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD officers or employees withholding information vital to my interests from me under any excuse.
c.3. I do not consent to THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD officers or employees using the United States mails to harasss or annoy me.
c.4. I Reserve my Privileges and Immunities as one of the People of the United States of America and of the State of California and will apply all lawful Remedies necessary to defend myself and my property against unlawful intrusion.

d. Notice: Should an official investigation become necessary, the letter FTB 4744A (REV 08-1999) PAGE 1 and PAGE 2 dated 03-02-00 will be submitted to the Postal Inspection Service as prima facie Evidence of a violation of TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, section 1341.

I Certify, under the penalties provided for the crime of Perjury in the Law of the United States of America and in the Law of the State of California, that the foregoing is True and Accurate, to the best of my knowledge, belief, and understanding at this time.

Verified by my hand, this Day, the ______________ day of___________________ in the year of Our Lord, one thousand, two thousand, in ____________________________city, ______________________county,________________________state, United States of America.

Signature: _______________________________________

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III