To: THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
GERALD H. GOLDBERG, EXECUTIVE OFFICER
9645 Butterfield Way
Sacramento, CA 95827

FORWARD AND ADDRESS CORRECTION REQUIRED.

Dear GERALD H. GOLDBERG:

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.1. On or about June 8, 2000, I was delivered the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (FTB) response (dated June 5, 2000, no document identifier; copy attached and incorporated herein by reference) to my "DEMAND FOR ACCESS TO RECORDS (per THE CIVIL CODE (2000), sections 1798, et seq.)" (dated April 7, 2000; incorporated herein by reference since you are supposed to be in possession of the original) and acknowledged per the U.S.P.S. Return Receipt stamped: "RECEIVED [above] FRANCHISE TAX" and postmarked April 17, 2000 (copy attached and incorporated herein by reference).

A.2. The information set out above refutes the statement: "Your request received 5/11/00, reference # Z 388 350 939", made by one "Paul Brainin", on behalf of the FTB. The location of my letter within the FTB for almost a month is neither my fault nor my problem. I now have reasonable cause to believe that this "Paul Brainin" has forfeited his and the FTB's Presumption of Good Faith.

A.3. Since The State Bar of California (http://www.calsb.org/MM/SBMBRSHP.HTM) does not claim this "Paul Brainin" as one of its members, this "Paul Brainin" probably does not have any discretion in performing his non-discretionary ministerial duty as "Disclosure Specialist". So this "Paul Brainin" is prima facie in violation of his duty to deliver the requested documents.

A.4. In general, the tone of this "Paul Brainin" 's letter is un-cooperative and unresponsive enough to amount to a willful and unauthorized denial of access to FTB Records potentially affecting me and my affairs and to willful misconduct in office.
How am I supposed to make informed decisions about my life and affairs when the only entity who, to my knowledge, possesses that information unilaterally decides to unlawfully withhold it from me?

So I will address each item of my original letter as responded to by this "Paul Brainin".

1.a. The statement: "Please be advised that the Information Practices Act (IPA) does not require Agencies to conduct research to determine which resolution, decision, or statute you are seeking. Nor does the Act require an agency to respond to statements that appear to be more appropriately addressed in a judicial proceeding." ("Brainin" letter, 1a.) is in Error. My understanding of the IPA is that it was enacted specifically to allow insight and examination into the workings of state agencies, including all writings, papers, etc. My experience with state government has been that when an agency will not/cannot comply with open disclosure, I can Presume said agency to be hiding, or attempting to hide, something important to my affairs.
I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that the FTB possesses NO "valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove that the FTB legally exists within the State of California.".

1.b. For the reasons set out in 1.a. above, I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that the FTB possesses NO "valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove that the FTB legally exists within the THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA."

1.c. I Object. I requested "each and every valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove that the purported subagency "Filing Compliance Bureau" in Fact exists within the FTB." I was delivered a chart (identified as FTB 1250 (Rev. March 2000)) purporting to display the organization of the FTB, but it surely does not constitute "each and every valid Document(s)...".

1.d. I Object. I requested "each and every valid Document(s) upon which the FTB relies to Prove that this "R. Lubiens"/"R.LUBIENS"/"RDL"/"Roger Lubiens" is, in Fact, an employee/officer of the FTB." I was delivered an OATH OF ALLEGIANCE AND DECLARATION OF PERMISSION TO WORK FOR PERSONS EMPLOYED BY THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA (identified as STO. 689 (REV. 7-75)), which appears facially incomplete, hence invalid, since it does not contain any information in the blocks, STATE DEPARTMENT OR AGENCY and SUBDIVISION OR UNIT and since said document is not sealed as implicitly required by the block (SEAL).

1.e. I Object. I requested "each and every valid Document(s)upon which the FTB relies to Prove that this "R. Lubiens"/"R.LUBIENS"/"RDL"/"Roger Lubiens" is, in Fact, authorized to perform any action as, or on behalf of, THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.". I was delivered a FRANCHISE TAX BOARD POSITION DUTY STATEMENT (identified as FTB7892 (Rev. 9/89), which appears invalid on its face when compared to the FTB organization chart (FTB 1250 (Rev. March 2000)). Said FRANCHISE TAX BOARD POSITION DUTY STATEMENT purports that this "Roger Lubiens" is a "Senior Compliance Representative" in the "Filing Enforcement Operations Section". Yet the FTB chart (FTB 1250 (Rev. March 2000)), if accurate, shows no such "Filing Enforcement Operations Section" within the FTB.

2.a. I Object. "The 1997 540A you filed was deemed invalid;" ("Brainin" letter, 2a.). This statement is irrelevant to the required disclosure(s).

(1) deem, 1. To treat (somethng) as if (1) it were really something else, or (2) it has qualities that it doesn't have... 2. To consider, think, or judge....

" 'Deem' is a useful word when it is necessary to establish a legal fiction either positively by 'deeming' somethng to be something it is not or negatively by 'deeming' something not to be something which it is.... All other uses of the word should be avoided. ... 'Deem' is useful but dangerous. It creates an artificiality and artificiality should not be resorted to if it can be avoided." G.C. Thornton, Legislative Drafting 83-84 (2d ed. 1979)

Black's Law Dictionary, 7th ed., (1999), p. 425.

(2) A fiction of law "is defined to be a legal assumption that a thing is true which is either not true, or which is as probably false as true; the rule on this subject being that the court will not endure that a mere form or fiction of law, introduced for the sake of justice, should work a wrong contrary to the real truth and substance of the thing." (Per Lord Mansfield, C. J., Johnson v. Smith, 2 Burr. 962; Broom's Legal Maxims, 128.). Hibberd v. Smith, 67 Cal. 547 (1885).

I cannot determine which document is supposed to be "the enclosed notice pertaining to the invalid return." ("Brainin" letter, 2a.); Is it supposed to be the NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT? Please be more specific.

I know of no lawful reason why should I even consider ordering and paying for "each and every Document(s) which the California FTB claims to constitute an "invalid" return..." on form FTB 3516 when I have already requested according to statute by my letter of April 7, 2000, and effectively been denied the delivery of, said Document(s).

2.b. I Object. I know, and you and all your employees are Presumed to know, that THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE is not the law of California; it is a reference resource to locate relevant Statutes and case decisions. While THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE sections are numbered consecutively, they do not necessarily relate to the same subjects. I have diligently tried to back-research THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE to the Statutes and cannot determine exactly to whom or what, except state-chartered banks and corporations, said THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE does, or should, apply.
The "Revenue and Taxation Code section 18621" ("Brainin" letter, 2b.) specifically relates to banks and/or corporations.
I have been unable to determine to whom, or what, "Revenue and Taxation Code section 17004" ("Brainin" letter, 3b.) applies.
I also give Notice that THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE is a highly confusing mess, apparently as a result of numerous revisions and renumberings of Sections in the past.
I have made a diligent search in both THE REVENUE AND TAXATION CODE for references to Statutes, and the appropriate parts of THE CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS for Regulations, applicable to the Form 540 and I have been unable to find any such Statutes or Regulations. If the FTB wishes to maintain the position that the Form 540 was created under unpublished (i.e. "underground") regulations or rules, that position implies that the Form 540 and its derivatives is/are unauthorized under California law and, hence, invalid from the first day of its/their useage. The Office of Administrative Law is the proper venue for Requests for Determination of legitimacy of "underground" regulations.
I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that there is NO "law, Statute, regulation, or rule which the Californa FTB claims authorizes the creation and/or use of the California Form 540.".

3.a. I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that the FTB possesses NO "valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove the original genesis/creation/existence of the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III.".

3.b. I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that the FTB possesses NO "valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove that the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" is, in fact, a taxpayer.".

3.c. I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that the FTB possesses NO "valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to establish which "State" ... the FTB purports the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" to be legally domiciled within.".

3.d. I Object. The Document FTB PIT FILING ENFORCEMENT TAX YEAR 1998 does not seem to fit the criteria of "Documents(s) which the FTB relies upon to Prove the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" is, in fact, engaged in any revenue taxable activity in this "State"...".
If this Document is a back-door attempt to Serve another invalid FTB claim, I Demand that the FTB Abate it immediately and permanently for the following reasons:

(1) The Document FTB PIT FILING ENFORCEMENT TAX YEAR 1998 shows "CALIFORNIA SOURCE *" "TOTAL INCOME" "29,307". That purported amount is a Fiction and in Error. The FTB has delivered NO Evidence to support that purported claim.
Since this is a knowingly false document knowingly generated by FTB and knowingly placed into the United States Postal Service, I reserve the right to file a complaint under Title 18, UNITED STATES CODE ANNOTATED, Sections 1341 and 1346 against the FTB.
Immediately Correct FTB records so that "CALIFORNIA SOURCE *" "TOTAL INCOME" reads "0" (zero). Correct the COMPUTED NET TAX LIABILITY from "855" to read "0" (zero). I direct the FTB to never again Impute "CALIFORNIA SOURCE *" income to "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" and/or "THORNHILL III THOMAS M".

(2) The Document FTB PIT FILING ENFORCEMENT TAX YEAR 1998 shows "T/P STATUS"; this is in Error.
Since the FTB has failed to deliver any Evidence to support its position that the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" and/or "THORNHILL III THOMAS M" is a taxpayer, Correct your record(s) by removing the designator(s) T/P, TAXPAYER, and any other similar designator(s) from all FTB record(s) immediately and permanently.

(3) The IRS Restructuring & Reform Act of 1998 (Pub. L 105-206) reads:

"Section 3707(a). PROHIBITION--The officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service--
(1) shall not designate taxpayers as illegal tax protesters (or any similar designation); and
(2) in the case of any such designation made on or before the date of enactment of this Act--
(a) shall remove such designation from the individual master file; and
(b) shall disregard any such designation not located in the individual master file."

3.e. I accept the Determination of the FTB that NO "valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove that the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" is, in fact a United States offficer (sic)/employee resident within this "State"..." currently exists. Do not create said Document(s).

3.f. I accept the Determination of the FTB that NO "valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove that the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" is, in fact, a State of California officer/employee resident within this "State"..." currently exists. Do not create said Document(s).

3.g. I accept the Determination of the FTB that NO "valid Document(s) which the California FTB relies upon to Prove that the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" is, in fact, an officer of any United States or State of California corporation charted within this "State"..." currently exists. Do not create said Document(s).

3.h. I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that the FTB possesses NO "valid taxing Assessment made by THE FRANCHISE TAX BOARD against the entity "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" for each "tax year" 1979 through 1999 inclusive.".

4.a. I Object. There is no Document delivered to me which I can positively identify, on its face, as a "valid Document(s) which constitutes the IRS "Individual Master File" (IMF) and/or the FTB equivalent (by whatever name/label/style the FTB maintains it) under the name of "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" and/or the number "226666234" for each "tax year" 1979 through 1999 inclusive.". If the Document FTPROD (PIT1065) TAXPAYER OTHER YEAR DISPLAY is supposed to be in response to this request, it does not show any information for the "tax year" 1979 through 1989, inclusive, as requested.
I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that the FTB possesses NO "valid Document(s) which constitutes the IRS "Individual Master File" (IMF) and/or the FTB equivalent (by whatever name/label/style the FTB maintains it) under the name of "THOMAS M THORNHILL III" and/or under the number "226666234" for each "tax year" 1979 through 1999 inclusive.".

4.b. I Object. I requested "each and every valid Document(s) which constitute(s) sufficient of the FTB manual(s)/table(s)/chart(s)/ so that I, as an average layman, may decode and interpret the IMF/FTB equivalent and arrive at the exact same interpretation as has the FTB."
I accept the Determination by the Default of the FTB that the FTB possesses NO "valid Document(s) which constitute(s) sufficient of the FTB manual(s)/table(s)/chart(s)/ so that I, as an average layman, may decode and interpret the IMF/FTB equivalent and arrive at the exact same interpretation as has the FTB."

I was not previously aware that I was dealing with an entity which perceives itself to be a Business. Since the FTB wishes to sell (Form 3516 (REV 10-95)) "for $10.00 for each tax year requested." and "submit a request for a copy of the TI Manual,... The cost is $46.60 plus appropriate sales tax..." ("Brainin" letter, 4b.)) me information potentially relating to my affairs in knowing and willful violation of THE CIVIL CODE (2000), sections Sections 1798, et seq., I reserve the right to treat said FTB as such a business.
I give Notice that the FTB, through the actions of "Roger Lubiens" and "Paul Brainin", has breached its duty of "good faith and fair dealing" as required by THE CIVIL CODE as well as its obligation of "good faith" required by THE COMMERCIAL CODE.
5. My original letter read, in relevant part:
"If the FTB cannot/will not deliver the Document(s) referred to above in a timely manner, I am entitled to the Presumption that the FTB does not possess said Document(s)."
I accept that conclusive Presumption caused by the Default of the FTB.

6. No response was required.

7. The FTB has admitted that it is, in Fact, subject to The Information Practices Act (THE CIVIL CODE, sections 1798 et seq.).

[8]. There was, and is, no paragraph 8; my typographic error in the original.

9. My original letter was undisputed, so the statement, "...I have a lawful and legitimate interest in the records referenced above ..." is conclusively Presumed to be True.

From the non-performance of the FTB, I have reasonable cause to believe that either: (1) Document(s) I requested, in Fact, do not exist, or (2) the California FTB is knowingly and willfully withholding said Document(s)in defiance of specific California Statutes.
"Roger Lubiens" has previously sent me knowingly false letters.
"Paul Brainin" has sent me a knowingly false letter.
"Gerald H. Goldberg" has failed or refused to answer my letters of April 7, 2000 (Z 388 350 939) and April 13, 2000 (Z 474 859 768).
This state of affairs presents me with some problems.
Hypothecating option (1) to be True, I would then have never actually had any valid Obligation to pay anything to the FTB and by accepting my funds and not promptly returning them, the FTB has committed Actual Fraud against me and Conversion of my property.
Hypothecating option (2) to be True, the FTB would have demonstrated an open contempt for the Statutory scheme of this State which would be actionable by myself, any district attorney, the California Attorney General, and probably the United States Government.
Hypothecating both options (1) and (2) to be True, the FTB would stand revealed as an entity actively engaged in civil and criminal Fraud against myself.

I grant your organization and "Paul Brainin" an additional ten (10) calendar days from your receipt of this letter to remedy the Fault of the FTB. After that time the FTB will have admitted by its own actions to a Default of its duty to disclose and will have agreed to be Estopped by its own actions from changing its position.

I reserve the right to file an personnel complaint against "Paul Brainin" for willful violation of said Information Practices Act. Why I should consider this action is explained by THE CIVIL CODE Sections quoted, in relevant part, following:

1798.70. This chapter shall be construed to supercede any other provision of state law, including Section 6253.5 of the Government Code, or any exemption in Section 6254 or 6255 of the Government Code, which authorizes any agency to otherwise withhold from an individual any record containing personal information which is otherwise accessible under the provisions of this chapter.

1798.32 Every individual shall have the right to inquire and be notified as to whether the agency maintains a record about himself or herself. Agencies shall take reasonable steps to assist individuals in making their requests sufficiently specific.
Any notice sent to an individual which in any way indicates that the agency maintains any record concerning this individual shall include the title and business address of the agency official responsible for maintaining the records, the procedures to be followed to gain access to the records, and the procedures to be followed for an individual to contest the contents of these records... 1798.34.(e) When an individual is entitled under this chapter to gain access to the information in a record containing personal information, the information or a true copy thereof shall be made available to the individual at a location near the residence of the individual or by mail, whenever reasonable.

1798.41.(a). Except as provided in subsection (c), if an agency determines that information requested pursuant to Section 1798.34 is exempt from access, it shall inform the individual in writing of the agency's finding that disclosure is not required by law.

1798.47. Any agency that fails to comply with any provision of this chapter may be enjoined by any court of competent jurisdiction....
Actions for injunction under this section may be prosecuted by the Attorney General, or any district attorney in this state, ... or by any individual acting in his or her own behalf.

1798.55. The intentional violation of any provision of this chapter or of any rules or regulations adopted thereunder, by an officer or employee of any agency shall constitute a cause for discipline, including termination of employment.

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."

The FTB should take Notice of these citations.

(1)

The state does not, by becoming a corporator, identify itself with the corporation....
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. Planters' Bank of Georgia (1824), 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 904, 907; 6 L.Ed 244.

(2) It is inconceivable that they [county employees] should be permitted to represent the people, be supported by the people, and at the same time have the privilege of advocating the overthrow of the very government by which they are employed and obtain their livelihood. ....
"...If they desire to advocate the overthrow of the government of the United States, the State of California, or the county of Los Angeles, they may do so by any and all lawful means after first resigning from their public employment. ... A servant employed by the people is held to an even higher standard, and his employer, the people, not only may, but it is their duty through their authorized representatives to make proper inquiry as to his fitness for the position which he occupies and as to his intentions and acts relative to his loyalty to the people. (emphasis added) Steiner v. Darby (1948), 88 Cal.App.2d 481, 199 P.2d 429; appeal dismissed (1949), 338 U.S. 327, 94 L.Ed. 144, 70 S.Ct. 161.

(3) 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.

(4) 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.

Signature: _______________________________________

Thomas Murrell Thornhill III