To: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD
PROTEST SECTION
MAIL STOP D-12
PO BOX 942867
SACRAMENTO CA 94267-5540

Declarant, __________________________________________________, is a competent witness and does Solemnly state that:

1.a. I am a natural born, white Man, above the age of 18 years. I was born within the territorial boundaries of Georgia, one of the States of the constitutional Republic, the United States of America. I currently live within the territorial boundaries of California, one of the States of the constitutional Republic, the United States of America. I believe myself to be one of the people of the United States of America and one of the people of California.

1.b. I prevailed in a similar matter as the result of a hearing (Appeal Hearing 97A-1336) before the STATE BOARD OF EQUALIZATION (SBE) on August 27, 1998, and I prevailed in a similar matter as the result of an informal hearing (case number 2580119270088816) before the STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (FTB) on November 6, 2000.
I request that FTB examine the records from those hearings before proceeding further.
I believe the instant matter to be a non-issue and I do not know of any legitimate reason why FTB continues to pursue what I perceive to be a frivolous accusation.
I feel harassed and I feel that, since the facts and law involved in this matter for 1999 will be mostly the same as in prior years, FTB's continuing pattern of behavior is unfair, unreasonable, and oppressive.

1.c. One of my remedies as set out in the CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (2001), § 527.6 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/waisgate?WAISdocID=74551017369+2+0+0&WAISaction=retrieve [as of November 2, 2001]) is to seek an injunction against harassment in the name of Gerald Goldberg (in part, emphasis added):

527.6. (a) A person who has suffered harassment as defined in subdivision (b) may seek a temporary restraining order and an injunction prohibiting harassment as provided in this section.
(b) For the purposes of this section, "harassment" is unlawful violence, a credible threat of violence, or a knowing and willful course of conduct directed at a specific person that seriously alarms, annoys, or harasses the person, and that serves no legitimate purpose. The course of conduct must be such as would cause a reasonable person to suffer substantial emotional distress, and must actually cause substantial emotional distress to the plaintiff.
As used in this subdivision:
...
(3) "Course of conduct" is a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose, including following or stalking an individual, making harassing telephone calls to an individual, or sending harassing correspondence to an individual by any means, including, but not limited to, the use of public or private mails, interoffice mail, fax, or computer e-mail. Constitutionally protected activity is not included within the meaning of "course of conduct." ...

2.b. It is a fact that there is no unity of identity between THOMAS M THORNHILL III and myself.

3.a. It is a fact that West's Ann.Cal.Rev. & Tax. Code (2001), § 18501, (effective in 1999) reads (in 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. ... (3) A gross income from all sources in excess of ten thousand dollars ($10, 000), if single,...
(4) In the case of an individual described in Section 63(c)(5) of the Internal Revenue Code, relating to limitation on basic standard deduction in the case of certain dependents, a gross income from all sources that exceeds the amount of the standard deduction allowed under that section.

3.c. It is a question of fact whether I was an "individual taxable under Part 10..." in 1999.
To my present knowledge, FTB has not made a formal DETERMINATION of that fact for either me or THOMAS M THORNHILL III.

3.d. It is a question of fact whether I had a "taxable year" in 1999.
To my present knowledge, FTB has not made a formal DETERMINATION of that fact for either me or THOMAS M THORNHILL III.

4.a. I very much dislike the legal doctrine of "presumptions".

600. (a) A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. A presumption is not evidence.
...

601. A presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable. Every rebuttable presumption is either (a) a presumption affecting the burden of producing evidence or (b) a presumption affecting the burden of proof.
(in part) EVIDENCE CODE §§ 600-601 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=evid&group=00001-01000&file=600-607 [as of November 3, 2001]).

...A deceit, within the meaning of the last section, is either:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
2. The assertion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who has no reasonable ground for believing it to be true;
3. The suppression of a fact, by one who is bound to disclose it, or who gives information of other facts which are likely to mislead for want of communication of that fact; or,
4. A promise, made without any intention of performing it.
West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2001), § 1710.

...Actual fraud, within the meaning of this Chapter, consists in any of the following acts, committed by a party to the contract, or with his connivance, with intent to deceive another party thereto, or to induce him to enter into the contract:
1. The suggestion, as a fact, of that which is not true, by one who does not believe it to be true;
2. The positive assertion, in a manner not warranted by the information of the person making it, of that which is not true, though he believes it to be true;
3. The suppression of that which is true, by one having knowledge or belief of the fact;
4. A promise made without any intention of performing it; or,
5. Any other act fitted to deceive.
West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2001), § 1572.

...Constructive fraud consists:
1. In any breach of duty which, without an actually fraudulent intent, gains an advantage to the person in fault, or any one claiming under him, by misleading another to his prejudice, or to the prejudice of any one claiming under him; or,
2. In any such act or omission as the law specifically declares to be fraudulent, without respect to actual fraud.
West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2001), § 1573.

4.d.1. Based on personal knowledge, I deny that I was an official, officer, or employee of THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, THE UNITED STATES, or any other State during 1999.

4.d.2. I deny that there is any valid reason how or why I should be subject to the provisions of GOVERNMENT CODE, § 1170.5 (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/displaycode?section=gov&group=01001-02000&file=1170-1176 [as of October 27, 2001]):

1170.5. In the case of the State, "law" also means the law of any state providing for the withholding of personal income tax from wages or salaries of its residents employed by other states; provided, that the law of that state, in the determination of the State Controller, provides for withholding of personal income taxes from wages or salaries of its employees residing in California.

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.

4.i. I deny that I was knowingly involved in the importation or exportation of any thing during 1999.

4.j. I deny FTB's repeatedly stated presumption in CPM 2100 (Exhibit 3) that FTB deals with "debtor" and "debtors" of the FTB.

(1) I deny that I have any valid outstanding obligation(s), either actual or constructive, to pay money, or to perform, to FTB.

(2) I deny that I have any known duty to perform in any capacity in relation to FTB.

(3) To the best of my knowledge, FTB holds no valid commercial obligation(s) bearing my signature.

(4) If FTB does hold any valid commercial obligation(s) bearing my signature, it has neglected/refused to NOTICE me concerning its interest in said commercial obligation(s).

(5) It is a fact that I am a private party. I deny that I am the surety or guarantor for THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA or for FTB. I deny that I have or will assume such a capacity.

4.k. I resent FTB placing me in a position where I may be presumed to be a fiduciary "representing" the legal fiction THOMAS M THORNHILL III, or where I must pretend to be said fiduciary in order to defend myself; I deny that I am acting in such fiduciary capacity.

4.l. I resent the presumption that I am, in some way, an ALIEN in my own Nation. Certainly the current SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION Form SS-5 (my hypothecated quasi-nexus) does not state anywhere on its face: "I hereby relinquish my Citizenship in the United States of America in order to receive benefits under this program." or "I agree to stand as surety for the debts of THE UNITED STATES". I deny that I am an Alien within the constitutional Republic, the United States of America or within the State of California.

4.m. I deny that, to date, I have received any NOTICE from FTB in, or for, 1999 that FTB has made a formal DETERMINATION that THOMAS M THORNHILL III is a TAXPAYER.
In reasonable reliance upon that fact, I deny that I, or THOMAS M THORNHILL III, legitimately is a TAXPAYER.

4.n. I deny that, to date, I have received any NOTICE from FTB in, or for, 1999 that FTB has made a formal DETERMINATION that THOMAS M THORNHILL III was doing business in California.
In reasonable reliance upon that fact, I deny that I, or THOMAS M THORNHILL III, was doing business in THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA in 1999.

5.a. It is a fact that there is an entity calling itself the Federation of Tax Administrators (FTA)(http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/ftafact.html [as of November 3, 2001]) which purports to be "a nonprofit corporation under § 501(c)(3) of the Internal Revenue Code" and to have as members: "The principal tax collection agencies of the 50 states, the District of Columbia and New York City are the members of the Federation of Tax Administrators."

5.b FTA claims as members from California (http://www.taxadmin.org/fta/fta_mem.html [as of November 3, 2001]), Gerald Goldberg of the California Franchise Tax Board and James Speed of the California Board of Equalization.

5.c. I deny that I have any known contractual relationship with FTA.

5.d. I deny that I am knowingly a party to any contract/compact/agreement/arrangement/understanding/etc. between FTB/SBE and FTA and I do not know how I could be.

5.e. I reasonably infer that, to the extent to which either Mr. Goldberg or Mr. Speed is acting, in their respective official capacities, as agents of/for the benefit of FTA, there would appear to be an irreconcilable conflict-of-interest on their respective parts with their respective duties and responsibilities to THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA.

6.a. On or about July 25, 2001, I removed from the mailbox I rent from UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE (USPS) an envelope from STATE OF CALIFORNIA FRANCHISE TAX BOARD (hereafter FTB) containing a DEMAND FOR TAX RETURN (Form FTB 4600 C3 MEO (NEW 07-2000), number 01-1794643-072301, dated 07/23/2001) PAGES 1-2) (hereafter DEMAND), and a REPLY TO FTB (Form FTB 4600C C3 (NEW 07-2000), PAGES 3-4) (hereafter REPLY).

6.b. I retained the originals of the DEMAND and on July 30, 2001, I returned the REPLY (photocopy of DEMAND and of my retained REPLY copies attached and incorporated herein in full as Exhibit 1) completed to the best of my knowledge, to FTB at: P.O. Box 942840, MS F-200, Sacramento, CA 94240-0040 via USPS Certified Mail # 7001 0360 0001 9241 3630, Return Receipt Requested.

6.c. I attach and incorporate herein a double-sided photocopy of the completed USPS documents CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (PS Form 3800, January 2001) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811, March 2001) as Exhibit 2.

7.a. FTB's stated presumption (DEMAND, PAGE 1) that: "We received information from BUREAU OF SECURITY/INVESTIGATIVE SERVICES that you either held an active professional/business license in 1999, or sales permit with their agency, OR that you had employees working for you." is vague and indefinite and also rebuttable and I hereby rebut it:

7.b. It is a fact that I made a timely return (REPLY, PAGE 4) stating: "1. I am "registered" as a security guard and "licensed" as a "driver". 2. I did not receive any income from either activity in 1999." I do not know how I could make my statement any simpler or clearer.

7.c. It is a fact that in California, Private Patrol Operators and Security Guards generally were regulated under the California Business and Professions Code, §§ 7580 et seq. in 1999. In the belief that the B. & P. Code has not been substantially amended in the past several years, I cite CALIFORNIA BUSINESS AND PROFESSIONS CODE (2001) (http://leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=bpc&codebody=&hits=20 [as of 10/20/01]):

A private patrol operator, or operator of a private patrol service, within the meaning of this chapter is a person other than an armored contract carrier, who, for any consideration whatsoever:
Agrees to furnish, or furnishes, a watchman, guard, patrolperson, or other person to protect persons or property....
(e) A security guard or security officer, within the meaning of this chapter, is an employee of a private patrol operator,...
(in part, emphasis added) BUS. & PROF. CODE (2001), § 7582.1.

7582. No person shall engage in a business regulated by this chapter; act or assume to act as, or represent himself or herself to be, a licensee unless he or she is licensed under this chapter; and no person shall falsely represent that he or she is employed by a licensee.
BUS. & PROF. CODE (2001), § 7582.

7582.05. (a) Notwithstanding any other provision of law, any person engaging in a business as a private patrol operator who violates Section 7582 is guilty of an infraction subject to the procedures described in Sections 19.6 and 19.7 of the Penal Code under either of the following circumstances:...
BUS. & PROF. CODE (2001), § 7582.05.

(a) For purposes of this article, "licensee" means a private patrol operator or an alarm company operator.
(b) For purposes of this article, "guard or registrant" means a uniformed employee of a private patrol operator, an alarm agent of an alarm company operator, and any person employed or compensated by a private patrol operator or any lawful business as a security guard and who, in the course of such employment, carries a deadly weapon.
(in part, emphasis added) Title 16, CCR, § 625.

7.f. It is a fact that I have never knowingly applied to be licensed as a Private Patrol Operator or similar licensee and that I did not hold myself out to be a licensed Private Patrol Operator or do business as one in 1999.

7.g. It is my understanding, in reliance upon the Bus. & Prof. Code, that I cannot legally work as a security guard without working for a Private Patrol Operator, a similar licensee, or as a direct employee of an employer. In the latter case, I would be specifically exempt from the licensing provisions by the Bus. & Prof. Code:

7582.2. This chapter does not apply to:
(a) A person employed exclusively and regularly by any employer who does not provide contract security services for other entities or persons, in connection with the affairs of the employer only and where there exists an employer-employee relationship if that person at no time carries or uses any deadly weapon in the performance of his or her duties. ...
(in part) BUS. & PROF. CODE (2001), § 7582.2(a)

7.i. It is a fact that I was not an employer and I had no employees in 1999. I deny that I have any obligation to FTB based on the presumption that I am a withholding agent for the tax obligations of non-existent employees.

8.a. It is a fact that I received no further correspondence from FTB until on, or about October 11, 2001, when I removed from the mailbox I rent from USPS an envelope from FTB containing a NOTICE OF PROPOSED ASSESSMENT (Form FTB 5860 MEO (REV 06-2001), PAGES 1-4, number 01-0616603-100901, dated 10/09/2001) (hereafter NPA) and a Protest Procedure slip (FTB 5821 (NEW 09-2000).

8.b. FTB's stated presumption (NPA, PAGE 1) that: "We have no record of receiving your tax return or information indicating that you do not have a filing requirement." is demonstrably false by reference to Exhibit 2. The acknowledgment on the Domestic Return Receipt is a very faint black-ink mechanical impression which appears to read: "Claea Jewell" above a 10-digit number which reads: "[two unreadable digits]0-338-0505". The date stamp is very faint and unreadable. It is my reasonable inference that someone acting, or purporting to act, for FTB did in fact receive, and did acknowledge receipt of, my REPLY.

8.c. I have no personal knowledge of, nor reason to know, what happened to said REPLY within FTB after it was in fact received. The presumption is that, once it was received, said REPLY was properly routed within FTB.

8.d. My understanding is that the functional effect of the stated presumption: "We have no record of receiving your tax return or information..." is for FTB to avoid making a DETERMINATION based upon the facts stated in my REPLY and to presume a Default on my part. I deny said Default.

9.a. It is a fact that the FTB Statement of Principles of Tax Administration (hereafter Statement) is publicly-available at the FTB website (http://www.ftb.ca.gov/other/mis%26prin.htm [as of 10/15/01]) (attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 3) and reads (in part, emphasis added):

Mission of the Franchise Tax Board

The purpose of the Franchise Tax Board is to ... perform in a manner warranting the highest degree of public confidence in our integrity, efficiency and fairness. ... Administration should be both reasonable and vigorous. It should be conducted with as little delay as possible and with great courtesy and considerateness. It should never try to overreach, and should be reasonable within the bounds of law and sound administration. ...

2100 CASE PROCESSING
2100.01 Manual Processing Functional Area Cases
August 2001
1. Our response to contacts from debtors regarding unassigned cases should be consistent with the Statement of Principles of Tax Administration with the following objectives:
a. Resolution of the debtor's entire case will be attempted during the first debtor contact.
b. Emphasis will be placed on educating debtors regarding their obligations....

2. The following guidelines have been established to implement these objectives:
a. Correspondence will be answered within 21 days of the department's receipt. ...

10. I make the reasonable inferences from the foregoing information that: (1) someone acting, or purporting to act, for FTB did in fact receive and acknowledge my REPLY, (2) FTB was required by its own publicly-available stated policies to respond to my REPLY within 21 days, and (3) to the extent that the publicly-available stated policies constitute a standard of reasonableness for FTB actions, FTB has behaved in an unreasonable manner.

11. It is a fact that, by the act of denying the receipt of my timely-returned REPLY, FTB has unilaterally made it impossible for me to resolve this matter as set out in CPM 2100.01.1.a.: "Resolution of the debtor's entire case will be attempted during the first debtor contact."
I reasonably infer that FTB has foreclosed my right to due process and, at the same time, has failed or refused to exhaust its own administrative remedies.

12.a. Some Maxims of Law have been codified in West's Annotated California Civil Code:

No one can take advantage of his own wrong.
West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2001), § 3517.

No one should suffer by the act of another.
West's Ann.Cal.Civ. Code (2001), § 3520.

13. I reasonably infer that FTB has already violated my rights to not be deprived of liberty or property without the due process of law and my right to equal protection of the law as guaranteed to me by the Constitution of the United States and by the Constitution of the State of California as set out in my Protest.

14. From the facts set out above and the laws set out in my Memorandum of Points and Authorities, I reasonably infer that the NPA in question is invalid because FTB has neglected/refused to make a timely DETERMINATION based upon my timely REPLY, thereby neglecting/refusing to exhaust its own administrative process, and because the NPA is demonstrably false.

15. To the extent that this course of dealing by FTB may be demonstrated to be FTB's current standard procedure, pattern, course, or custom, as may be reasonably inferred from FTB's creation, use, and mailing of said DEMAND, REPLY and NPA forms denying receipt of a requested REPLY, I reasonably infer FTB's behavior to constitute a pattern of unreasonable, knowing, and wilful violation of the due process and equal protection rights of myself and all other people of California similarly situated.

16. It is my reasonable inference that any action taken by FTB without having timely resolved the issues already presented in my REPLY will be a further actionable violation of my right to due process.

17. On October 22, 2001, I made timely return of the original NPA, together with photocopies of my retained copy of my REPLY and the original of my Notice of Service for said REPLY (attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 5), marked on its face on PAGES 1-3: "Refused for cause - fraud" to FTB at P.O. Box 942840, MS F-200, Sacramento, CA 94240-0040 via USPS Certified Mail # 7001 1940 0000 2569 1676, Return Receipt Requested.

18. On or about October 29, 2001, the USPS Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811) for said NPA was placed in the box I rent from USPS. I attach and incorporate herein as Exhibit 6 a double-sided photocopy of said CERTIFIED MAIL RECEIPT (PS Form 3800, January 2001) and Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811, March 2001). The acknowledgment on the Domestic Return Receipt is a faint black-ink mechanical impression which appears to read: "Claea Jewell" above a 10-digit number which reads: "800-338-0505". I have no knowledge of what this number means. The date stamp is faint and partially unreadable. It is again my reasonable inference that someone acting, or purporting to act, for FTB did in fact receive, and did acknowledge receipt of, said NPA.

19. On November 6, 2001, I mailed my Request for Discovery (attached and incorporated herein as Exhibit 7) to FTB at: FRANCHISE TAX BOARD, PROTEST SECTION, MAIL STOP D-12, PO BOX 942867, SACRAMENTO CA 94267-5540 via USPS Certified Mail # 7001 1940 0000 6650 8179, Return Receipt Requested.

I certify under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: __________________________________

At: _____________________________________

Signature: ________________________________________