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 23, 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:

I believe it will be useful to remind the above-named members of THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (hereafter the FTB) and, through them, each and every employee of the FTB of this information:

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.

"§ 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.)

D. The United States Supreme Court has held:

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. ...
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.

The state does not, by becoming a corporator, identify itself with the corporation. The Planters' Bank of Georgia is not the state of Georgia, although the state holds an interest in it.
It is, we think, a sound principle, that when a government becomes a partner in any trading company, it devests itself, so far as concerns the transaction of that company of its sovereign character, and takes that of a private citizen. Instead of communicating to the company its privileges and its prerogatives, it descends to a level with those with whom it associates itself, and takes the character which belongs to its associates, and to the business which is to be transacted. (emphasis added). The Bank of the United States v. the Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907, 6 L.Ed 244.

Statement of Policy

My personal policy is to interact with others as openly and honestly as possible. It makes my life much simpler when I simply tell the truth.
I do NOT intend any unlawful or illegal harm or injury to the State of California, D.C.H.P. (a California Corporation), your particular office of D.C.H.P., and/or any member/employee thereof. At the same time I do not, cannot, and will not, excuse, condone, or tolerate any unlawful, illegal, or extra-legal interference with myself, my property, or my affairs by the State of California, D.C.H.P. (a California Corporation), and/or its employees.
. . .
[I do not need to remind you that should you or any of your fellow employees or any affiliated agencies view this complaint as a "threat to their authority" or a reason/excuse for a vendetta or harrassment (sic) aimed at me and/or my property, that such behavior would be not only totally unacceptable, but criminal as well.]
I specifically reserve all lawful and legal Rights and Remedies.

When the territory now comprised in the State of California was under Mexican dominion, its judicial system was that of the Roman law, modified by Spanish and Mexican legislation. Upon the formation of the present State government, that system was ordained by a constitutional provision to be continued, until it should be changed by the Legislature. At the first session of the Legislature an act was passed, adopting the common law of England; and on the 22d of April, 1850, another act was passed, repealing all the laws previously in force, but providing, "that no right acquired, contracts made, or suits pending, shall be affected thereby." Fowler v. Smith (1852), 2 Cal. 568, 569.

The common law was adopted in this state at the meeting of its first legislature. Prior to that time the Constitution of 1849 had been adopted, which provided that, "No person shall be held to answer for a capitol or other infamous crime ... unless on presentment or indictment of a grand jury." The grand jury system is a product of the common law. The civil law [nt: of Mexico] made no provision for a body like the grand jury in its system of jurisprudence. The members of the first constitutional convention in providing for a grand jury must have had in mind the grand jury as known to the common law. This the respondents [nt: the Superior Court] admit, but further contend that the constitutional convention of 1879 adopted an entirely different system than the common law system provided for in the Constitution of 1849. We find nothing to justify this conclusion either in the Constitution or in the debate of the constitutional convention of 1879. Fitts v. Superior Court (1936), 6 Cal.2d 230, 240-241.

General objections:

I am NOT a "tax protester" nor "potentially dangerous taxpayer" or any other derogatory label as the IRS (or The FTB) chooses to use the terms.
I do object to willful and knowing mis-application of the tax laws of the United States of America.
My experience in dealing with THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA entities since about 1990 has been that they rely on many hidden Presumptions which are almost always detrimental to my Interests, my protection, and/or my well-being.

1.a. This letter is a timely and legally sufficient response to the form letter identified as FTB 4620MEO (NEW 08-1999) PAGE 1, dated 3/8/2000, and delivered March 11, 2000, which was apparently mailed through the mistake or error of the California FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.

The FRANCHISE TAX BOARD is again in Error.

I am returning that legally invalid Document because it simply is not Fair-on-its-Face.
I have marked it:

Since THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD is using Commercial Process, under the imported Code Civil, I Demand that The FTB immediately Produce the contract.

1.a. I still do not understand why the FTB persists in mailing letters in pursuit of an issue which I understood had already been Administratively Determined adversely to the FTB by its own Default before the California BOARD OF EQUALIZATION.

1.b. The FTB, "represented" by 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 herein by reference): Appeal of Thomas M. Thornhill, III, 97A-1336, August 27, 1998, 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."

1.e. As that Transcript (incorporated herein by reference) (pp.5-14) Proves, Mr. McEvilly, and through him the FTB, made no effort to prove the existence of "THOMAS M. THORNHILL, III".
1.f. The FTB subsequently withdrew its "claim".
1.g. I have no reason to believe that "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" lawfully exists either.

2.a. According to CALJUR 3d, NAMES, "R. LUBIENS" is not a valid legal name and neither is "his mark": "R L".

2.b. 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.

2.c. I request Discovery of the true full legal name of "R. LUBIENS".
I request Discovery of any Evidence which Proves that "R. LUBIENS" is in fact an officer/employee of the FTB.

2.d. I request Discovery of the Evidence which Proves any Delegation of Authority which would allow "R. LUBIENS" to "represent" the FTB without in the process practicing law without a license.

2.e. I request Discovery of the full legal name of the California-licensed Attorney(s) (John Doe 1, etc.) who actually crafted said Document.

2.f. I request Discovery of any Evidence which Proves that (John Doe 1) has any valid relationship with or to the FTB.

3. Considering the nature of The FTB:
3.a.1. THE GOVERNMENT CODE (2000), § 15700 reads, in relevant part:

There is in the state government, in the Agricultural 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 ..., together with all lawful rules and regulations established thereunder, are expressly continued in force.

Section 1. Part 2.5 (commencing with Section 12800) is added to Division 3 of Title 2 of the Government Code, to read:
...
12800. There are in the state government the following agencies: Health and Welfare; Youth and Adult Corrections; and resources.
...
12804. The Youth and Adult Corrections Agency consists of the following departments; Corrections; and Youth Authority.

STATUTORY AGENCIES AND SECRETARIES
The names of the Health and Welfare Agency, Youth and Adult Corrections Agency and Resources Agency established by Government Code Section 12800 are changed to Human Relations Agency, Agriculture and Services Agency and Resources Agency.

AGRICULTURE AND SERVICES
The Agriculture and Services Agency consists of the following:
...
H. Franchise Tax Board

The Agriculture and Services Agency is hereby renamed the State and Consumer Services Agency.

3.a.7. I request Discovery of any Evidence in the possession of the FTB which supports the FTB's hidden Presumption(s) that:
(1) THOMAS M THORNHILL III is a STATE OF CALIFORNIA employee.
(2) THOMAS M THORNHILL III is carried on the payroll of The Youth and Adult Corrections Agency.
(3) The payroll check for THOMAS M THORNHILL III is regularly being sent to the address: PO BOX 1755 USPS NEVADA CITY CA 95959.
or (4) THOMAS M THORNHILL III is in the "Custody" of the Youth and Adult Corrections Agency.
3.b.1. The FTB by its own admission requires there to be a "federal" tax liability before there can be a California liability:
3.b.2. From Personal Income Tax Booklet 1998 page 31 (225): Instructions for Form 540- California Resident Income Tax Return:

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. ...

3.b.4. These documents taken together necessarily imply that there must be an Agreement/Contract/Compact in force between the United States and the FTB before the FTB has Standing to administer the "federal" program.

3.b.5. I request Discovery of a True copy, including the signature page(s), of each and every Treaty/Agreement/Contract/Compact for the administration of the tax laws which was in force and effect between: (1) the FTB and THE UNITED STATES and/or the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE/IRS/INTERNAL REVENUE, PUERTO RICO in 1997.
(2) THE UNITED STATES any any Nation(s).
(3) THE STATE OF CALIFIORNIA and any Nation.
(4) THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA and any State(s).

3.b.6. I request Discovery of each and every Document which the FTB claims proves that "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" had a "federal" tax liability in 1997.

3.b.7. I request Discovery of a true copy of each and every Instrument/Document/Writing/etc. in my name and bearing my signature upon which The FTB relies or claims-to-rely as the fundamental (organic) basis for its Standing in this matter.

3.b.8. I request the Discovery of any Document/Instrument/Writing upon which The FTB is/may be relying which reads plainly on its face above the signature of either or both of my parents:
"Being a loyal citizen of the United States of America, and mindful of the financial difficulties of my country, I hereby knowingly, willingly, and intelligently pledge my first-born child, his labor, and the fruits of his labor as Surety/Collateral for the debts of THE UNITED STATES."

3.b.9. I request Discovery of any Document/Instrument/Writing upon which The FTB is/may be relying which reads on its face above my signature:
Either (1) "Being born into the United States of America, I knowingly, willingly, and intelligently pledge my body, my labor, and the fruits of my labor as Surety/Collateral for the debts of THE UNITED STATES."
or (2) "In exchange for the Promise of the benefits of Social Security, I knowingly, willingly, and intelligently relinquish my Citizenship in the United States of America to become a person subject to the jurisdiction of THE UNITED STATES."
or (3) "Wishing to live in the State of California, I knowingly, willingly, and intelligently pledge my body, my labor, and the fruits of my labor as Surety/Collateral for the debts of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA."
3.b.10. I have no reason to believe that any of the above-mentioned document(s) lawfully exist.

3.c.1. There is also the requirement that one be "engaged in business" within this State before there can be any liability or obligation to "return" income.
"To "engage" in a business, trade, or occupation means to be occupied in or employed in, and connotes frequency and continuity of action." 11 CAL JUR 3D (REV) Part 1, sec. 2.

3.c.2. I request Discovery of any Evidence in the possession of the FTB which Proves the Presumptions that:
(A) "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" was engaged in business within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.
(B) "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" had an employer within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1997.

3.d. Since the FTB claims that "California tax liability is dependent upon California contacts and/or California source income...", I request Administrative Discovery of the following Document(s) to prove the presence of "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA:
(1) The valid CALIFORNIA DRIVER LICENSE in the name "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" created in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1997.
(2) The valid VOTER REGISTRATION AFFIDAVIT in the name "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" recorded in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1997.
(3) The valid FICTITIOUS BUSINESS STATEMENT in the name "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" recorded in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1997.
(4) Any valid 1099, W-2, or W-4 Form filed with the FTB in the name "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" for the "tax year" 1997. 3.e.1. I request Discovery of any Evidence in the possession of the FTB which supports the implied Presumption that, "Everyone holding a license/registration for anything within THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, is actually working under that license/registration and is receiving taxable income from that activity."

3.e.2. According to Title 18, C.C.R., § 17119 (1997) the Presumption of Taxability regulation was repealed "12-23-81: effective thirtieth day thereafter (Register 81, No. 52).".

3.f. Absent the Discovery and Delivery of the above-requested evidence, the necessary conclusion must be that the FTB is seeking Performance which it has no legal Standing to demand or to receive.

Specific objections:

1. The first paragraph- I Deny these statements.
The stated Presumption of The FTB that, "The documents(s) that you submitted to us does not constitute a valid tax return as required by California Revenue and Taxation Code section 18621." is so vague and indefinite that I have no way to determine what document(s) are being referred to.
I request Discovery of:
(a) True copy(s) of whatever Document(s) The FTB claims do(es) "not constitute a valid tax return".
(b) A detailed explanation of what kind of "return" the FTB Purports to be requiring. Are we talking about a form, a Declaration, an amount of money, or what?
(c) A copy of each statute/regulation which establishes "our minimum filing requirement.".
)d) If the FTB is requiring that I complete a form(s), I request Delivery of the blank form(s) which the FTB claims is required to be completed, together with the FTB's Certification that it is a valid form(s).

2. The second paragraph- I Deny these statements.
These statements are irrelevant to the issue at hand until such time as we actually Determine what Document(s) is being referenced by the FTB.

3.1. The third paragraph- I Deny these statements.
Sloan v. Commissioner (7th Cir. 1995), 53 F.3d 799 is a "federal" case relating to IRS forms. SHEPARD'S FEDERAL CITATIONS suggests that it is an anomalous case, used in the United States Tax Court. I understand that such cases are usually construed by the courts as having no precedential value in California nor in the 9th Circuit. So far as I know, THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA does not practice in United States Tax Court.
I cannot meet the "threshhold" conditions to utilize Tax Court, so Sloan v. Commissioner appears to be irrelevant.

3.2. The substance of Sloan, as I understand it, is an admission that an initially invalid form proffered by the IRS and legally subscribed with reservation of rights by the subscriber cannot be deemed by the IRS to have been validated by the Consent of the subscriber.

3.3. THE COMMERCIAL CODE (2000), § 1207 reads:

A party who, with explicit reservation of rights, performs or promises performance or assents to performance in a manner demanded or offered by the other party does not thereby prejudice the rights reserved. Such words as "without prejudice", "under protest" or the like are sufficient.

3.5. Moreover, if the IRS (or The FTB) is demanding that one prejudice one's rights when dealing with the IRS, all such statutes would be unconstitutional-as-applied as a violation of one's right to contract freely.
I can reasonably conclude that Sloan v. Commissioner and the deciding court are probably in Error.
The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "Thus when you altered the signature block area of the tax return, you invalidated the return." is probably false.
I do not know, at this time, what "tax return" The FTB is referring to. I do not know if it is actually "altered" or not. Even if True, the stated Presumption is not supported by Sloan v Commissioner in California.

4. The fourth paragraph- I Deny these statements.
The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "This letter is a formal legal demand that you file the required tax return(s) pursuant to Revenue and Taxation Code Section 18501 within 30 days.", is impossible to perform. From this statement and from the rest of this letter, I have no knowledge of what "required return(s)" is/are supposedly the subject of the "demand". We have not yet Determined that any return is required for the year 1997. This "demand" is invalid as failing to state an intelligible claim and as being premature.
The stated Presumption by the FTB that, "The enclosed FTB 1140 provides an explanation of penalties and interest." is false. The related notation "Enclosure" located near the bottom of the page is also false.
I Declare that when this letter was delivered, there was no FTB 1140 enclosed.
I request Discovery and Delivery of whatever FTB 1140 is.

5. The fifth paragraph- I Deny this statement.
The stated Presumption of the FTB that, "If ..., the prior assessment will remain in effect." is legally deemed a Surprise. What "prior assessment"? Who made such "prior assessment"? When did someone make such "prior assessment"? Why have I not been Noticed of this "prior assessment"?
I request Discovery and Delivery of a complete True copy of said Purported "prior assessment".

6. The sixth paragraph- I Deny this statement.
The stated Presumption of the FTB is irrevant at this point. We have still not Determined that a return (whatever it is) is required to be filed, so it is Legally Impossible to fail-to-file one.

7. In every and every instance where the Evidence for which I have requested Discovery does not exist, I request an official specific Admission that such Evidence does not exist.

For the Record:

I. The form letter identified as FTB 4620MEO (NEW 08-1999) PAGE 1, dated 3/8/2000, is NOT written in plain English, but appears to have been carefully crafted to confuse and to deceive, is mostly false on its face, and is not the work of one who is honorably bound to "well, truly, and faithfully perform the duties of his office".
I Reserve a Personnel Complaint against R. LUBIENS and/or John Doe 1 for Civil Harassment and for Abuse of Authority.

J. While the FTB can attempt to ruin whatever is left of my life with this proposed proceeding, the FTB cannot gain/profit from this proposed proceeding. I cannot afford to hire an Attorney, so I would have to proceed as my own counsel in forma pauperis. Most of that my property is, or should be, exempt from execution under the R. & T. Code.

K. Should The FRANCHISE TAX BOARD fail or refuse to Deliver, at its own expense, each and every one of the items of Discovery that I have requested, The FRANCHISE TAX BOARD agrees to be Estopped from pursuing this matter in any forum whatsoever.

L. Under the "Clean Hands" doctrine, The FTB is Barred from proceeding in any "court".

M. Under the "Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies" doctrine, The FTB is Barred from proceeding in any "court", unless and until it fully complies with the requirements of Administrative Due Process.
"When administrative action has raised serious constitutional problems, the Court has assumed that Congress or the President intended to afford those affeccted by the action the traditional safeguards of due process." (citations omitted) Greene v. McElroy (1959), 360 U.S. 474, 3 L.Ed.2d 1377, 1397, 79 S.Ct. 1400.

N. I enter this Protest in the strongest possible terms and hereby request a full, formal, on-the-record, Administrative Hearing before the elected members of The FRANCHISE TAX BOARD on the issues raised in this Protest/Request.

O. I request an Administrative Subpoena for the physical presence of one R. LUBIENS and a Subpoena Duces Tacum for all his papers/records/work product relevant to this matter at that formal Hearing.

P. Notice: Should an official investigation become necessary, the form letter identified as FTB 4620MEO (NEW 08-1999) PAGE 1, dated 3/8/2000, will be submitted to the Postal Inspection Service as prima facie Evidence of a second violation of TITLE 18, UNITED STATES CODE, section 1341.

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

Signature: _______________________________________

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III