To: Supervisor, General Counsel Section
Legal Branch, MS: B-17
Franchise Tax Board
P.O. Box 1720
Rancho Cordova, California 95741-1720

1.a. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN and DEMAND MADE that I request Administrative Review of FRANCHISE TAX BOARD's (hereafter FTB) stated refusal to correct/amend its records in response to my I.P.A. Request entitled "Notice of Maintenance of Erroneous Information in violation of the California Information Practices Act (West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2002), §§ 1798 et seq.", dated February 25, 2002 (hereafter Request).

1.b. NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN and SECOND DEMAND MADE that FTB correct the erroneous information it maintains about me as specifically addressed in item 5.c. following.

1.c. This request for review is made pursuant to West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2002), § 1798.36, which reads:

Each agency shall permit any individual who disagrees with the refusal of the agency to amend a record to request a review of such refusal by the head of the agency or an official specifically designated by the head of such agency, and, not later than 30 days from the date on which the individual requests such review, complete such review and make a final determination unless, for good cause shown, the head of the agency extends such review period by 30 days. If, after such review, the reviewing official refuses to amend the record in accordance with the request, the agency shall permit the individual to file with the agency a statement of reasonable length setting forth the reasons for the individual's disagreement.

2.a. I have no reason to believe that "Supervisor, General Counsel Section" is the head of, or an official of, FTB; to the best of my knowledge, Gerald H. Goldberg, Executive Officer, is the head of FTB and Kathleen Connell, State Controller, John Chiang, Board of Equalization, and B. Timothy Gage, Director of Finance, are currently the officials of FTB.

2.b. I request that "Supervisor, General Counsel Section" (whoever he/she may be) forward this Request to a competent head or official of FTB for action.

2.c. NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN and DEMAND MADE that, in reasonable reliance upon the "Notice of Applicable California law concerning the licensing of an attorney." which I mailed to FTB November 20, 2001 (Exhibit 4, attached and incorporated herein in full), I demand that "Supervisor, General Counsel Section" (and each and every attorney substituted for him/her) assure me that he/she has actually complied with California law by delivering to me a true copy of his/her license and his/her evidence of good standing with the State Bar of California before making any legal determination affecting my rights or liabilities in relation to FTB.

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.

4.a. February 26, 2002, I mailed to FTB my Request to correct certain erroneous information maintained in its records (hereafter Request) (Exhibit 1, original, bearing my wet signature, consists of 9 pp. and 13 pp. Exhibits stapled together is incorporated herein in full by reference. It should be in possession of "Paul Brainin"), pursuant to West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2002), § 1798.35 which reads (emphasis added):

Each agency shall permit an individual to request in writing an amendment of a record, and shall within 30 days of the date of receipt of such request:
(a) Make each correction in accordance with the individual's request of any portion of a record which the individual believes is not accurate, relevant, timely, or complete and inform the individual of the corrections made in accordance with their request; or
(b) Inform the individual of its refusal to amend the record in accordance with such individual's request, the reason for the refusal, the procedures established by the agency for the individual to request a review by the head of the agency or an official specifically designated by the head of the agency of the refusal to amend, and the name, title, and business address of the reviewing official.

5.a. April 12, 2002, I removed from the mailbox which I rent from U.S.P.S., a Letter (Exhibit 3, attached and incorporated herein in full) (hereafter Letter) from a "Paul Brainin" stating FTB's refusal to correct errors which I had demonstrated in record(s) that FTB maintains about me.

5.b. Said Letter fails to rise to the minimum standard established by Civ. Code, § 1798.35 (set out above) because it:
(1) fails to inform me of "the procedures established by the agency".
I reasonably infer from my search of the Statute to Regulation Index (2002) of BARCLAYS CALIFORNIA CODE OF REGULATIONS that FTB has failed/neglected to properly adopt any Regulation(s) to implement Civ. Code, § 1798.35;

(2) fails to inform me of the "name ... of the reviewing official";

(3) fails to establish that "Supervisor, General Counsel Section" is the "head of the agency or an official specifically designated by the head of the agency".

5.c. My specific objections to the contents of "Paul Brainin"'s Letter are as follows:

(1) "Your request to delete the "protester" designation from your account is denied. The determination was made based upon the type of information you submitted to this agency." (Letter, 5e.) is not a valid affirmative assertion that FTB's information is accurate, relevant, timely, or complete and is unsupported by any evidence.
From the information set out herein, I reasonably infer that this "account" is not MY account, but is a creation of FTB.
The information I have sent to FTB over the past 4 years has been solidly grounded on California statutes-as-codified and on standing case law.
"Internal Revenue Service The Digital Daily IRS Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998 3707 -Illegal Tax Protestor Designation" ( http://www.irs.gov/faqs/display/0,,i1%3D54%26genericId%3D23225,00.html [as of May 23, 2002]) (Exhibit 5, attached and incorporated herein in full) explicitly states:

C. Change(s): 1. The IRS shall not designate any more taxpayers as "illegal tax protestors." Removal of existing "illegal tax protestor" designations from the individual master file is not required to begin before January 1, 1999."

It is a fact that the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals has held:

The reason for the requirement that there must be some evidentiary foundation linking the taxpayer to the alleged income-producing activity is especially acute where, as here, the government asserts that the taxpayer was engaged in an activity which is otherwise illegal. This is particularly true when the illegal activity is not only morally reprehensible, but also punishable by an extended prison sentence. By its allegation that a taxpayer has unreported income from the sales of narcotics, the government is affixing a label, a label which in this case reads "heroin pusher." To allow the government to do this without offering any probative evidence linking the taxpayer to the activity runs foul of every notion of fairness in our system of law.
Weimerskirch v. C.I.R. (9th Cir. 1979), 596 F.2d 358, 362.

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that I further suggest in the strongest possible terms that FTB forget that it has ever seen or heard of the designators "illegal tax protestor"/"ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTOR"/"TP" in relation to me. I DEMAND that FTB remove said designators from all records that it maintains about me. I strongly caution FTB to refrain from attaching the designators "potentially-dangerous-taxpayer"/"nonfiler" or any other similarly defamatory label to records maintained about me.

(2) "Your request to delete "[ private info deleted ]" from your account is denied. [ private info deleted ] is an account number used to identify your account." (Letter, 6f.) is not a valid affirmative assertion that FTB's information is accurate, relevant, timely, or complete and is unsupported by any evidence.
So far as I can determine from FTB's IPA disclosure, "[ private info deleted ]" is not MY account, but seems to have been unilaterally created by FTB, by prefixing the numerics "[ private info deleted ]" to the alphabetics "[ private info deleted ]" and using said "account number" to identify an erroneous FTB "account". FTB has failed to provide any evidence of any statutory authority to create such an identifier or "account". FTB did not receive information about "[ private info deleted ]" directly from me, as is required by West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2002), § 1798.15:

§ 1798.15 Sources of information
Each agency shall collect personal information to the greatest extent practicable directly from the individual who is the subject of the information rather than from another source.

Statement of Principles of Tax Administration
...it is the duty of the Franchise Tax Board to carry out that policy by correctly applying the laws enacted by the Legislature; to determine the reasonable meaning of various Code provisions in light of the legislative purpose in enacting them; and to perform this work in a fair and impartial manner, with neither a government nor a taxpayer point of view.

(5) "Your request to delete the "SIC 7381" designation from your account is denied. The designation was made based upon information submitted to this agency by the Dept. of Consumer Affairs, Bureau of Security/Investigative Services. Your income was estimated based upon the industry (SIC 7381) average." (Letter, 9j.) is not a valid affirmative assertion that FTB's information is accurate, relevant, timely, or complete and is unsupported by any evidence.
From the information set out, I reasonably infer that this "account" is not really MY account, but an erroneous creation of FTB.
To the best of my knowledge, I have not told FTB that I was actively engaged in the industry "SIC 7381" represents in 'tax year 1999'.
I accept FTB's admission that FTB did not receive the information from me, as required by Civil Code, § 1798.15 (set out above).
The SIC Manual was superseded as of 1999 and I reasonably infer that all SIC numbers were superseded along with it and are clearly no longer timely.
I reasonably infer that FTB also needs to update its Regulation: Title 18, C.C.R. § 17053.49-2, which is also no longer timely.
The bare fact that an "industry (SIC 7381) average" exists is irrelevant until FTB determines from valid facts that I was actually engaged in that industry and FTB has failed to show that by any evidence.
During the course of the past two years, I have repeatedly sent FTB testimonial evidence, which FTB has failed to refute, that I was NOT licensed as a business, was not qualified within California law to be licensed as a business, and was not knowingly "doing business" in California.
DCA's website: "A Consumer's Guide to the California Department of Consumer Affairs' Bureau of Security & Investigative Services" ( http://www.dca.ca.gov/bsis/bsiscons.htm [as of April 16, 2002] ) pp. 1-2 of 3 (Exhibit 7, attached and incorporated herein in full) explicitly states what I have been telling FTB for 2 years now (in part, emphasis added):

DCA licenses private patrol operators, private investigators, alarm company operators, repossession agencies, and locksmiths, and certifies their training facilities and instructors. [p. 1]

Security guards cannot contract as sole proprietors--a private patrol operator must employ them. A security guard employed by a private patrol operator must pass a BSIS-approved powers to arrest exam given by the licensee, pass a criminal background check, and meeet specific DCA requirements. [p. 2]

(6) "Your request to delete information from the Integrated Nonfiler Compliance system pertaining to you is denied. You provided no documentation to prove an inaccuracy; in fact, you affirmed holding a "registration" as a "guard." (Letter, 10.) is not a valid affirmative assertion that FTB's information is accurate, relevant, timely, or complete and is unsupported by any evidence.
I do not know the implications of being in the Integrated Nonfiler Compliance system.
It is a fact that I had no known Federal tax liability for 'tax year 1999'.
Since I have demonstrated three times that I had no known tax liability to FTB and FTB has agreed with me, I reasonably infer that the Integrated Nonfiler Compliance system is not an appropriate place for FTB to maintain records about me.
When I have provided competent and relevant information to FTB, FTB shows a consistent unwillingness to acknowledge, believe, or credit said information, as evidenced, in part, by "Paul Brainin"'s Letter.
I reasonably infer that the fact I have a "registration" evidencing my qualification to work as a security guard is irrelevant until FTB can provide evidence that I worked and/or actually received income as a direct result of working under said "registration" in 'tax year 1999'.
DCA's webpage: "Search Results for Security Guard" ( http://appserv1.dca.ca.gov/wllpub/plsql/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.ActionQuery [as of April 16, 2002]), p. 1 (Exhibit 8, attached and incorporated in full herein) refutes FTB's implicit attribution to me of any status other than that of a security guard who must work for a licensee.
The Disclaimer on the same webpage explicitly admits DCA's own uncertainty about the "accuracy, completeness, timeliness, currency, or correct sequencing of the information" presented there and reads (in part):

Disclaimer
All information provided by the Department of Consumer Affairs on this web page, and on its other web pages and internet sites is made available to provide immediate access for the convenience of interested persons. While the Department believes the information to be reliable, human or mechanical error remains a possibility, as does delay in the posting or updating of information. Therefore, the Department makes no guarantee as to the accuracy, completeness, timeliness, currency, or correct sequencing of the information....

§ 1798.14. Contents of records
Each agency shall maintain in its records only personal information which is relevant and necessary to accomplish a purpose of the agency required or authorized by the California Constitution or statute or mandated by the federal government.

6.c. If I am wrong in my understanding (item 6.b.), FTB has failed/neglected to produce any evidence to the contrary.

7.a. To my knowledge, Brian W. Toman, Chief Counsel, is the person purportedly qualified to represent FTB.
Since "Paul Brainin" purports to be a "Disclosure Specialist" and, since FTB has shown me no evidence that a "Disclosure Specialist" would have any authority to make any decision affecting the maintenance of FTB record(s), I reasonably infer that "Paul Brainin" was not competent to issue his Letter.
Whether or not "Paul Brainin" was competent to speak for FTB, I am going to invoke equitable estoppel to prevent FTB from altering its position.

It is a fact that a California appellate court has held:

" 'The [unclean hands] rule is settled in California that whenever a party who, as actor, seeks to set judicial machinery in motion and obtain some remedy, has violated conscience, good faith, or other equitable principles in his prior conduct, then the doors of the court will be shut against him in limine; the court will refuse to interfere on his behalf to acknowledge his right, or to afford him any remedy.' " (Moriarty v. Carlson (1960) 184 Cal.App.2d 51, 55 [7 Cal.Rptr. 282], citing Lynn v. Duckel (1956) 46 Cal.2d 845, 850 [299 P.2d 236].)
The rule is qualified by the requirement that the party against whom the doctrine is sought to be invoked directly "infected" the actual cause of action before the court, and is not merely guilty of unrelated improper past conduct. (Moriarty v. Carlson, supra 184 Cal.App.2d at 57.) The actions of the party alleged to have soiled hands must relate "directly to the transaction concerning which the complaint is made; i.e., it must pertain to the very subject matter involved and affect the equitable relations between the litigants." (Fiberboard Paper Products Corp v. East Bay Union of Machinists (1964) 227 Cal.App.2d 675, 728 [39 Cal.Rptr. 64].) The doctrine is not restricted, however, to defense of suits in equity, but applies as well to suits at law. (Ibid.)
...
The equitable principles underlying the clean hands doctrine do not require a finding that [ ] was guilty of perjury, concealment or other illegal conduct, "[f]or it is not only fraud or illegality which will prevent a suitor from obtaining equitable relief. Any unconscientious conduct upon his part which is connected with the controversy will repel him from the forum whose very foundation is good conscience." (Italics added; DeGarmo v. Goldman (1942), 19 Cal.2d. 755, 765 [123 P.2d 1]; Seymour v. Cariker (1963) 220 Cal.App.2d 300, 305 [33 Cal.Rptr. 727].)
Pond v. Insurance Co. of North America (1984), 151 Cal.App.3d 280, 289-291, 198 Cal.Rptr. 517.

7.c. I have no personal knowledge that "Paul Brainin" is a judge, or is deceased, so I reasonably infer that "Paul Brainin" is not an active member of the State Bar of California and, hence, is not legally competent to "represent" FTB.

7.d. Whether "Paul Brainin"'s action constitutes the practice of law without a license in violation of Bus. & Prof. Code, § 6126 (a) and (b) is a question which I reserve the right to address.

8.a. I accept FTB's admission in writing in its Notice dated February 22, 2002, (Exhibit 11, attached and incorporated herein in full) (hereafter Notice) of having already made a determination adverse to me: "Based on a review of your file, you are subject to the state's filing requirements." (Exhibit 11, p. 1, ninth paragraph) concerning 'tax year 1999' prior to providing me an audit/oral hearing to challenge the basis for that determination: "We have received your request for a hearing. Per your request, we have forwarded your protest to the Franchise Tax Board Sacramento District Office to organize a hearing. A representative from the District Office will contact you to schedule a hearing in which you or your authorized representative can present your position to a Franchise Tax Board hearing officer."(Exhibit 11, p. 1, first and second para.)
FTB's webpage "Franchise Tax Board - LEGAL RULING 076" ( http://www.ftb.ca.gov/legal/rulings/Active/lr076.html [as of June 22, 2002] ) (Exhibit 19, attached and incorporated in full herein) reads (in part):

The time as to when a domestic corporation commences "doing business" requires a factual determination, which must be made in each individual case. ...

8.b. I accept FTB's admission in writing through "Paul Brainin"'s Letter (Exhibit 3) and in FTB's Notice (Exhibit 11) of having already violated West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2002), § 1798.45 (b) and (c), which read (emphasis added):

An individual may bring a civil action against an agency whenever such agency does any of the following:
(a)...
(b) Fails to maintain any record concerning any individual with such accuracy, relevancy, timeliness, and completeness as is necessary to assure fairness in any determination relating to the qualifications, character, rights, opportunities of, or benefits to the individual that may be made on the basis of such record, if, as a proximate result of such failure, a determination is made which is adverse to the individual.
(c) Fails to comply with any other provision of this chapter, or any rule promulgated thereunder, in such a way as to have an adverse effect on an individual.

In any suit brought under the provisions of subdivision (b) or (c) of Section 1798.45, the agency shall be liable to the individual in an amount equal to the sum of:
(a) Actual damages sustained by the individual, including damages for mental suffering.
(b) The costs of the action together with reasonable attorney's fees as determined by the court.