To: Franchise Tax Board
Disclosure Office, MS B-1
P.O.Box 1468
Sacramento, CA 95812-1468

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that I have reason to believe that the Franchise Tax Board (hereafter FTB) is maintaining erroneous information concerning me in its records in violation of the California Information Practices Act. Since FTB now also "knows or has reason to believe" this, I DEMAND that FTB take timely efforts to delete said erroneous information.

1. It is a fact that on November 1, 2001, I mailed my NOTICE OF REQUEST AND REQUEST FOR ACCESS TO RECORDS (per West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2001), §§ 1798-1798.75) to FTB via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, addressed to: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, DISCLOSURE OFFICE, P.O. BOX 1468, SACRAMENTO CA 95812-1468

2.a. On December 8, 2001, I removed from the box I rent from the U.S.P.S., an envelope (postmarked "DEC. 06'01") from FTB containing a two-page letter (dated December 5, 2001) from a "Paul Brainin, Disclosure Specialist" and 43 documents (hereafter: FTB's IPA response) supposedly responsive to my IPA Request to FTB of November 1, 2001. I spent over an hour trying to directly correlate any particular document sent by FTB (to the extent that FTB can rely on any of these non-certified computer-generated documents as evidence) to any particular item of my request. I finally determined that I did not have enough specific information to do so.

2.b. EVIDENCE CODE ( http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=8849238065+0+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve [as of February 16, 2002]) § 1552 reads:

1552. (a) A printed representation of computer information or a computer program is presumed to be an accurate representation of the computer information or computer program that it purports to represent. This presumption is a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence. If a party to an action introduces evidence that a printed representation of computer information or computer program is inaccurate or unreliable, the party introducing the printed representation into evidence has the burden of proving, by a preponderance of evidence, that the printed representation is an accurate representation of the existence and content of the computer information or computer program that it purports to represent.
(b) Subdivision (a) shall not apply to computer-generated official records certified in accordance with Section 452.5 or 1530.

"6.a. I request one, legible, copy/photocopy of each record(s) described below which is, or should be, maintained within, or under the control of FTB under the name "THOMAS M THORNHILL III", under the number "[private information deleted]", or under the identifier "[private information deleted]" for each 'tax year' 1979 through 2000, inclusive. ..."

3.c. I am not an attorney, an accountant, nor the owner/officer for a business, so I have had to find time to research said documents in detail and have found numerous errors contained in them. I request, based upon the facts set out following, that FTB delete those errors.

4.a. The Privacy Act (specifically 5 U.S.C.A., § 552a (e)), which applies to information which INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE has, or may have, supplied to FTB, requires (emphasis added):

(e) Agency requirements

Each agency that maintains a system of records shall--

(1) maintain in its records only such information about an individual as is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required to be accomplished by statute or by Executive order of the President;

(2) collect information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the subject individual when the information may result in adverse determinations about an individual's rights, benefits, and privileges under Federal programs;

(3) inform each individual whom it asks to supply information, on the form which it uses to collect the information or on a separate form that can be retained by the individual--
(A) the authority (whether granted by statute, or by Executive order of the President) which authorizes the solicitation of the information and whether disclosure of such information is mandatory or voluntary;
(B) the principal purpose or purposes for which the information is intended to be used;
(C) the routine uses which may be made of the information, as published pursuant to paragraph (4)(D) of this subsection; and
(D) the effects on him, if any, of not providing all or any part of the requested information;

(4) subject to the provisions of paragraph (11) of this subsection, publish in the Federal Register upon establishment or revision a notice of the existence and character of the system of records, which notice shall include--
(A) the name and location of the system;
(B) the categories of individuals on whom records are maintained in the system;
(C) the categories of records maintained in the system;
(D) each routine use of the records contained in the system, including the categories of users and the purpose of such use;
(E) the policies and practices of the agency regarding storage, retrievability, access controls, retention, and disposal of the records;
(F) the title and business address of the agency official who is responsible for the system of records;
(G) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be notified at his request if the system of records contains a record pertaining to him;
(H) the agency procedures whereby an individual can be notified at his request how he can gain access to any record pertaining to him contained in the system of records, and how he can contest its content; and
(I) the categories of sources of records in the system;

(5) maintain all records which are used by the agency in making any determination about any individual with to the individual in the determination;

1798.18. Each agency shall maintain all records, to the maximum extent possible, with accuracy, relevance, timeliness, and completeness.
Such standard need not be met except when such records are used to make any determination about the individual. When an agency transfers a record outside of state government, it shall correct, update, withhold, or delete any portion of the record that it knows or has reason to believe is inaccurate or untimely.

"Pursuant to Government Code section 11019.9, all departments and agencies of the State of California shall enact and maintain a permanent privacy policy, an adherence with the Information Practices Act of 1977 (Civil Code section 1798 et seq.), that includes, but is not necessarily limited to, the following principles:"
...
Each department shall implement this privacy policy by:
...
Complying with the Information Practices Act (Civil Code Section 1798 et seq.); the Public Records Act (Government Code Section 6250 et seq.) Government Code Section 11015.5, and all other laws pertaining to information privacy;
...
Last Modified Date: 10/18/2001

4100 Responsibility
...
Franchise Tax Board

The departmental Disclosure Officer is responsible for assuring compliance with the IPA, maintenance of related procedures, and coordinating exchanges of information with the IRS and other governmental agencies.

5.a. It is a fact that 10 of the documents in FTB's IPA response show the designator "PROTESTOR" (exemplar document identified as "FTPROD (PIT 1060)", attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 1); 2 show the designator "PROT" (exemplar document identified as "PIT ENFORCEMENT, TAX YEAR 1998", attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 2); and 2 show the "TI/TP Status Income Tax Protestor" (exemplar document identified as "INC Application/Entity-[private information deleted] THOMAS M THORNHILL III", attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3). I do not have personal knowledge of FTB's intended interpretation of said designator(s).

5.b. It is a fact that, in California, "protest" is the statutorily designated and mandated procedure for formally challenging FTB's NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT per West's Ann.Cal.Rev. & Tax. Code (2001), § 19041 (emphasis added):

19041. (a) Within 60 days after the mailing of each notice of proposed deficiency assessment the taxpayer may file with the Franchise Tax Board a written protest against the proposed deficiency assessment, specifying in the protest the grounds upon which it is based.
(b) Any protest filed with the Franchise Tax Board on or before the last date specified for filing that protest by the Franchise Tax Board in the notice of proposed deficiency assessment (according to Section 19034) shall be treated as timely filed.
(c) The amendments made by the act adding this subdivision shall apply to any notice mailed after December 31, 1999.

(a) PROHIBITION- The officers and employees of the Internal Revenue Service--
(1) shall not designate taxpayers as illegal tax protestors (or any similar designation); and
(2) in the case of any such designation made on or before the date of the 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.
. . .
(c) EFFECTIVE DATE-- The provisions of this section shall take effect on the date of enactment of this Act, except that the removal of any designation under subsection (a)(2)(A) shall not be required to begin before January 1, 1999.

5.e. From these facts, I request that FTB delete the designators "PROTESTOR", "PROT", and "Income Tax Protestor" from its record(s) on the ground that they are not accurate, relevant, or timely after January 1, 1999. I further request that FTB refrain from replacing said erroneous information with other erroneous information.

6.a. It is a fact that FTB's IPA response also contains a document (document identified as "[private information deleted] ... RECORD DATE: 10/10/96", attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 4) wherein FTB seems to have unilterally created a fictitious entity as "PRIMARY MATCH: [private information deleted]" and designated this entity as a "BUSINESS TYPE: SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP".

6.b. This document raises a reasonable inference that FTB, or one of its information-sharers, may have unilaterally ("automatically") created some fictitious linkage between an entity "[private information deleted]" (which the other documents in FTB's IPA response do not seem to support) and a fictitious "SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP" (which the other documents in FTB's IPA response also do not seem to support).

6.c. I rebutted the erroneous Presumption that I am/have a SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP in my Statement of Facts In Support of Protest of NPA 01-0616603-100901, dated November 20, 2001, and mailed to FTB at: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, PROTEST SECTION, MAIL STOP D-12, PO BOX 942867, SACRAMENTO CA 94267-5540 via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested, Items 4e, 4f, 4g, and 4h (copy-and-pasted from electronically-stored original here):

4.e. I deny that I have knowingly filed Articles of Incorporation (or similar documents) with the STATE OF CALIFORNIA, SECRETARY OF STATE as a BANK, CORPORATION, PARTNERSHIP, CORPORATION-SOLE, or TRUST for THOMAS M THORNHILL III because, to the best of my knowledge, it does not exist and I am not it nor the fiduciary for it.

4.f. I deny that I have knowingly filed Articles of Incorporation (or similar documents) as a BANK, CORPORATION, CORPORATION-SOLE, or TRUST with the SECRETARY OF STATE (or similar functionary) of any other State or the United States of America or of any foreign country in the world, for THOMAS M THORNHILL III because, to the best of my knowledge, it does not exist and I am not it nor the fiduciary for it.

4.g. I deny that I have knowingly filed a FICTITIOUS BUSINESS STATEMENT with the RECORDER of THE COUNTY OF NEVADA, with any other county in California, in any other State within the United States of America, or in any foreign country in the world for THOMAS M THORNHILL III because, to the best of my knowledge, it does not exist, I am not it, and I did not knowingly "do business" in California as a fictitious business in 1999.

4.h. To the extent that anyone has procurated such a fictitious status for THOMAS M THORNHILL III, that act was done without my knowledge. I deny my consent and state that said procuration was and is fraudulent ab initio.

6.e. I also state that I have not applied for, am not knowingly required to apply for, and do not hold, a city, county, or State Business License in California because, to the best of my knowledge, I am not "doing business" in California.

6.f. From these facts, I request that FTB delete the designator "[private information deleted]" from its record(s) on the ground that it is not accurate. I further request that FTB refrain from replacing said erroneous information with other erroneous information.

6.g. From these facts, I request that FTB delete the designator "SOLE PROPRIETORSHIP" from its record(s) on the ground that it is not accurate, or relevant, or timely. I further request that FTB refrain from replacing said erroneous information with other erroenous information.

7. It is a fact that one of the documents in FTB's IPA response (document identified as "FTPROD (PIT3300) RETURNS RECEIVED DISPLAY", attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 5) plainly shows that FTB claims to hold, and has held, monies (CR) due to me since at least 1991. I do not remember having received, or having cashed, a refund check for said monies from FTB. While said monies appear to be only a nominal amount or sum: [unknown units] 3.00-25.00, that fact makes me the Creditor and FTB the Debtor in a Creditor-Debtor relationship.

8.a. The same document (Exhibit 5) also contains the entries (column headings added interlinearly before each item for clarity): "[APE] 1297 [FILED DATED] 04/15/98 [RETURN DLN] 98-06104091 [STATUS] INV/FRIV RETURN ...".

8.b. I have reason to believe the designator "INV/FRIV RETURN" is erroneous if FTB interprets said STATUS designation in plain English to mean "INVALID" or "FRIVILOUS" RETURN. I refute said designation with FTB's NOTICE OF ACTION concerning NPA No. 02929427, dated 12/26/00 (attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 6). I reasonably infer that FTB would not have rendered such a NOTICE OF ACTION if my initial return had in fact been INV/FRIV.

8.c. I request that FTB delete the designator "INV/FRIV RETURN" because it is not accurate, relevant, or timely. I further request that FTB refrain from replacing said erroneous information with other erroneous information.

9.a. It is a fact that FTB's IPA response contains a document (document identified as "INC Application TY 1999-[private information deleted] - THOMAS M THORNHILL III", attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 6) showing the Designator "SIC 7381".

9.b. The OSHA website, Standard Industrial Classification Search (http://www.osha.gov/oshstats/sicser.html [as of February 15, 2002], attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 7) provides a search-engine for SIC numbers. After I typed in 7381 and submitted it, the site (http://155.103.6.10/cgi-bin/sic/sicser2?7381 [as of February 9, 2002], attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 8) gave me the result (in part):

SIC Description for 7381
7381 Detective, Guard, and Armored Car Services
Establishments primarily engaged in providing detective, guard, and armored car services. ...

The United States has a new industry classification system! The North American Industry Classification System (NAICS) replaces the U. S. Standard Industrial Classification (SIC) system. ...

9.e. North American Industry Classification System United States, 1997 (1998), page 993 (attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 10) reads (in part):

1987 U.S. SIC MATCHED TO 1997 NAICS U.S.

...
7381 Detective, Guard, and Armored Car
Services
...
Guard Services 561612 Security Guards and Patrol Services

561612 Security Guards and Patrol ServicesCAN

This U.S. industry comprises establishments primarily engaged in providing guard and patrol services, such as bodyguard, guard dog, and parking security services.

2. What is an establishment?
An establishment is generally a single, physical location at which economic activity occurs (e.g., store, factory, farm, etc.). An enterprise, on the other hand, may consist of more than one location performing the same or different types of economic activities. Each establishment of that enterprise is assigned a NAICS code.

9.i. To the best of my knowledge, I am not licensed, or required to be licensed, as a Private Patrol Operator (PPO); it is legally impossible for me to engage in the business of providing guard services or guards in California without being so licensed as said PPO; and I do not hold, and have not held, myself out as being a PPO, so I reasonably infer that said Designator "SIC 7381" is inaccurate.
9.j. I request that FTB delete the designator "SIC 7381" because it is not accurate, relevant, or timely after 1998. I further request that FTB refrain from replacing said erroneous information with other erroneous information.

10. I request that the document identified as "INC Application TY 1999 - [private information deleted]- THOMAS M THORNHILL III [Tax Comp]" (attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 13) be deleted because it is not accurate or relevant. I further request that FTB refrain from replacing said erroneous information with other erroeneous [sic] information.

In Hoeper v. Tax Commission, 284 U. S. 206 ... At page 215 we said:
"We have no doubt that, because of the fundamental conceptions which underlie our system, any attempt by a state to measure the tax on one person's property or income by reference to the property or income of another is contrary to due process of law as guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. That which is not in fact the taxpayer's income cannot be made such by calling it income. ..."
Plainly this is to measure the tax on A's property by imputing to it in part the value of the property of B, a result which both the Schlesinger and Hoeper Cases condemn as arbitrary and a denial of due process of law. Such an exaction is not taxation but spoliation. ...
The [conclusive statutory] presumption here excludes consideration of every fact and circumstance tending to show the real motive ...
... the presumption, nevertheless, precludes the ascertainment of the truth in respect to that requisite upon which the liability is made to rest ...
Such a statute is more arbitrary and less defensible against attack than one imposing arbitrarily retroactive taxes, which this court has decided to be in clear violation of the 5th Amendment. As said by Judge Learned Hand in Frew v. Bowers (C. C. A. 2d) 12 F. (2d) 625, 630, "Such a law is far more capricious than merely retroactive taxes. Those do indeed impose unexpected burdens, but at least they distribute them in accordance with the taxpayer's wealth. But this section distributes them in accordance with another's wealth; that is a far more grievous injustice." ...
... This [government's position] is very near to saying that the individual, innocent of evasion, may be stripped of his constitutional rights in order to further a more thorough enforcement of the tax against the guilty, a new and startling doctrine, condemned by its mere statement and distinctly repudiated by this court in the Schlesinger's Case (270 U. S. p. 240, 70 L. ed. 564, 43 A.L.R. 1224, 46 S. Ct. 260) and Hoeper's Case (284 U. S. p. 217, ante [76 L. ed.], 248, 52 S. Ct. 120), cases involving similar situations. Both emphatically declared that such rights were superior to this supposed necessity.
(information in brackets added) Heiner v. Donnan (1932), 285 U.S. 312, 76 L.Ed 772, 779-780, 52 S.Ct. 358.

SPOLIATION.
English Ecclesiastical Law
An injury by one clerk or incumbent to another, in taking the fruits of his benefice without any right to them, but under a pretended title. 3 Bl. Comm. 90, 91.
The name of a suit sued out in the spiritual court to recover for the fruits of the church or for the church itself. Fitzh. Nat. Brev. 85.
Torts
Destruction of a thing by the act of a stranger, as the erasure or alteration of a writing by by the act of a stranger. This has not the effect to destroy its character or legal effect....

SPOLIATOR. A spoiler or destroyer. It is a maxim of law, bearing chiefly on evidence, but also upon the value generally of the thing destroyed, that everything most to his disadvantage is to be presumed against the destroyer, (spoliator,) contra spoliatorem omnia praesumuntur. 1 Smith, Lead. Cas. 315.

spoliation ... 1. The intentional destruction, mutilation, alteration, or concealment of evidence, usu. a document. If proved, spoliation may be used to establish that the evidence was unfavorable to the party responsible. 2. The seizure of personal or real property by violent means; the act of pillaging. 3. The taking of a benefit properly belonging to another. 4. ...

13. Simply because I have not refuted the other documents in FTB's IPA response does not mean that I agree with, consent to, or ratify them; it just means I got tired or have not found the probable errors yet.

14. I Certify under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and accurate and that this is my signature subscribed below.

Dated: _____________________________________

At: ________________________________________

Signed: _______________________________________

Attachments:
Exhibits 1-13, inclusive.