This letter is in response to a frivolout return penalty letter from the California FTB.

---

<<ADDRESS>>
<<CITY>>, <<STATE>>  <<ZIP>>
<<DATE>>

 

 

LEGAL STAFF of the

California Franchise Tax Board (FTB),

PO Box 942840

Sacramento, Calif  (94240-0000)

References:

(1)     Your UNSIGNED AND UNAUTHENTICATED (anonymous and questionable) Notice dated June 18, 2001 addressed to ______________

(2)     My Request for Refund Affidavit sent to you via certified mail on April 11, 2001, certified mail number 7000-0520-0018-7112-2486.

(3)     Conversation with FTB agent named Patrick, station number 4436, on July 11, 2001 at 4:45pm regarding reference (1).

(4)     Conversation with FTB agent named Patrick, station number 4436, on July 12, 2001 at 4:

Enclosure(s):

(1)     Verified Affidavit of Default for California Franchise Tax Board

(2)     Form 540 for tax year 2000.  This form lists only the minimum information necessary to establish my tax liability, which is that I am a resident of California and that I had zero taxable income and the amount of tax paid which needs to be refunded.  You will note that although this form is beyond the due date of April 15, since there is not tax due and the entire amount is refundable, then no penalties are warranted.  You will also note that this form is NOT a new or additional return, but a clarification of the Request for Refund Affidavit found in Ref. (2) submitted for clarification at the request of Patrick of the Franchise Tax Board (station number 4436).  The FTB form 3525’s meant to be used with this form are found in Ref. (2).  I will forward these to AGAIN only in the event that you indicate that you lost the original form(s).

(3)     Voided W-2 forms from my employers for tax years 1998 through 2000.  These forms are incorrect because I am a resident of California (but not “the State of California” NOT liable for state income tax) and according to Patrick as expressed during Ref. (3), they should show taxable income only, which means they should indicate zero in block 17 rather than the number that is there.  Once again, I stand by the original 3525’s submitted with Ref. (2).

Subject: Affidavit Response to Your Letter FTB 4619MEO, Ref. (1)

Dear Sir(s),

1.  FACTS ESTABLISHED BY YOUR LACK OF RESPONSE TO REF. (2):

It is quite plain from reading your Ref. (1) that that you either didn’t read my Ref. (2) or that you are avoiding the issues raised in Ref. (2).  Consequently, I have attached Encl. (1) certifying the facts you have acquiesced to and admitted to by lack of response to Ref. (2) pursuant to the protocol mentioned above and reiterated in Ref. (2).  Furthermore, if you persist in harassing me, I may apply for a refund of all taxes paid for tax year 1997 as well, since the statute of limitations for refunds is four years under R&TC §19306.

In addition, you are delinquent in providing the copy of my FTB administrative file requested in Ref.(2) and this has hampered the effectiveness of responding to the requests made in Ref. (1).  Please promptly respond to my FOIA request as evidenced in Ref.(2) for a copy of my administrative records going back to 1998.

2.  RESPONSE TO ISSUES YOU RAISED IN REF. (1):

With regard to the issues you did respond to in Ref. (1) that were raised in Ref. (2), allow me to succinctly address each one as you described it at this time:

1.        Alleged “Frivolous Return(s)”

1.1.               According to your own definition in Ref. (1),  a frivolous return is a “substantially incorrect” return, or one that doesn’t have any financial information upon which to assess a tax liability.  I would argue that even if I submitted NO financial information whatsoever but a statement of residency in California or a California FTB form 590, then my return would STILL be adequate to compute my state tax liability, which is ZERO.

1.2.               During Ref. (3), Patrick indicated that “the only thing that belongs on a W-2 form is taxable income”.  Ironically, that is exactly what the 3525 forms I submitted with Ref.(2) reflected, which was my income subject to state tax, which is zero for residents of California.

1.3.               Section 17951 indicates that gross income

1.4.              The burden of proof therefore shifts squarely against you to demonstrate:

1.4.1.          What the law (not you, but the law as described in this letter) says was incorrect about my tax return(s) in Ref. (2).

1.4.2.          What information is in fact missing form the return that is necessary to compute the correct amount of tax.  I can’t truthfully include my W-2 income as taxable on line 12 of form 540 or line 1(a) of form 540X, because as I point out below, this income is not taxable because I am a resident of California.  Therefore, the returns in Ref. (2) are substantially correct in my view and reflect the correct amount of income on these lines.

2.        Alleged insufficient information to assess “taxpayer’s” income (R&TC Section 18501.

2.1.               First of all, I claim that I am NOT a “taxpayer” or one who is liable to pay state income tax as a resident of California, and the burden of proving that I am still rests on you.

2.2.               Ref. (2) contained all the information you require to compute my taxable income, which is zero.  The only think you need to know is that I am a resident of California, but not “the State of California”.  This fact alone establishes that I have no taxable income, as I explain in section 3 below.

2.3.               I have included form W-2’s for tax years 1998 and 1999 and 2000, but since I have no taxable income as a resident of California (but not “the State of California), I had no requirement to even file a return and am due a refund of all taxes erroneously paid, which agrees with the numbers indicated on the form 540X already submitted and with Encl (2).  The amount that should appear on line 12 of my California 540 form should therefore be “zero” and my taxable income is zero, and all state taxes paid should be refunded.

3.        Alleged alteration of the Jurat:

3.1.               Ref. (2) was submitted under penalty of perjury, which is all that is required top make it a valid return.

3.2.               Please clarify what aspect of the jurat, if any, was altered on any forms submitted as part of Ref. (2), as I am unaware of any changes to the jurat on any of the forms I submitted.  During Ref. (3), Patrick, your representative, assured me that this particular issue did not apply to me and so I won’t address it further.

4.        Application of penalties:

4.1.               You may only impose penalties for delinquency relate to tax due, and I have paid taxes I wasn’t liable for on all amounts earned, so there is no penalty you can assess.

4.2.               There can be no penalty or criminal charge for failing to file a return because you now have returns for the years 1998-2000 which I continue to certify under penalty of perjury as being true, correct, and complete.  The fact that theses returns don’t contain information documenting taxable income I don’t have doesn’t make them frivolous, it simply makes them accurate.  You can’t apply a penalty and duress to force me to commit perjury on the form and violate my good faith beliefs about income tax liability, because that would make my signature involuntary and signed under duress and thereby invalidate it based on the definition of “duress found below in section 4.  The burden of proof therefore rests squarely on you based on this letter to demonstrate a tax liability or that I am an alleged “taxpayer” in this instance because I completely refute such claims and my claims are consistent with your FTB form 590’s assertion that residents of California aren’t liable for taxes or withholding.

4.4.1.          A retraction of all penalties threatened in Ref.(1).

4.4.2.          A full refund of all California income taxes involuntarily withheld by the Franchise Tax Board for the years 1998 through 2000.

4.4.3.          A retraction of the false statements (meant to deceive me into paying taxes voluntarily) made my Patrick in Ref. (3) about the California form 590 Withholding Exemption form.

This request is based on the definition of “duress” found in section 4 below, which states in part:

Duress:  (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, page 504) “Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would).  Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent.  Head v. Gadsden Civil Service Bd., Ala.Civ.App., 389 So.2d 516, 519.  Application of such pressure or constraint as compels man to go against his will, and takes away his free agency, destroying power of refusing to comply with unjust demands of another.  Haumont v. Security State Bank, 220 Neb. 809, 374 N.W.2d 2,6.

Duress may be a defense to a criminal act, breach of contract, or tort because an act to be criminal or one which constitutes a breach of contract or a tort must be voluntary to create liability or responsibility

A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion is void.  Also, if  a party’s manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative, the contract is voidable by the victim.  Restatement, Second, Contracts §§174, 175.”

The key is that the duress is applied unlawfully, and you asking for taxes you can’t lawfully prove I am liable for, is unlawful and constitutes extortion under the color of office:

extortion under the color of office: “…Unlawful taking by any officer by color of his office, of any money or thing of value, that is not due to him, or more than is due or before it is due.”  4 Bla.Comm. 141; Com. v. Saulsbury, 152 Pa. 554, 25 A. 610; U.S. v. Denver, D.C.N.C. 14 F. 595; Bush v. State, 19 Ariz. 195, 168 P. 508, 509…”Obtaining property from another, induced by wrongful use of force or fear, OR under color of official right.”  See State v. Logan, 104 La. 760, 29 So. 336; In re Rempfer, 51 S.D. 393, 216 N.W. 355, 359, 55 A.L.R. 1346; Lee v. State, 16 Ariz. 291, 145 P. 244, 246, Ann.Cas. 1917B, 131. (Black’s Law Dictionary, Revised 4^th Edition)

Your FTB publications, like the IRS publications, aren’t the place to look for legal justification of your delegated authority to collect personal income taxes from me:  California appellate and supreme court rulings, the statutes, and the CCR’s (at http://www.calregs.com/) themselves are the only way you can demonstrate my liability, but I’ve already perused these extensively myself to prove the opposite, and have researched California court cases going all the way back to 1930 at Versus Law (http://www.versuslaw.com) and found no cases that would refute any of the conclusions in this letter.  If you aren’t able to address these legal issues, I suggest that you find someone who can do so.  Even if you do assemble a list of points and authorities, it will still be inadequate if it is not authenticated and signed under penalty of perjury by a member of your agency, because it will not be useful as evidence.  However, if I do get an authenticated point and authority refuting EVERY issue raised in this letter and I am convinced it does the job, then we can head off a legal battle later and save a lot of taxpayer dollars, which we both have an interest in doing.  Truth is the only thing that will win this war, threats or duress won’t work and you are wasting your time by trying to scare me with penalties.

5.        I ask that you please completely read the rest of this letter (and chapter 5 of The Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax, latest edition, free for the downloading at http://famguardian.org/) so that you can completely understand the comments above, or you will take the comments completely out of context and reach an irrational and unwarranted conclusion that may incur a risk of prosecution and personal liability on your part for malfeasance and extortion.

6.        If you do not honor the wishes expressed in this letter, then I will promptly pursue an administrative remedy as far as I can take it and then see you personally in court, and official immunity will not protect you from your lawless acts of extortion on a sovereign Citizen of California.  The materials I prepare to prosecute you will be shared (on http://famguardian.org) with 20,000 other like-minded freedom fighters to help them prosecute your colleagues after we are finished with you.  You might win one battle, but the sheer number of us, our dedication, and the information we share with each other over the Internet will win the war against your ignorance and fraud in the end.  You can only hide the truth and promote ignorance for so long before people figure out the fraud you have foisted upon them.  This is not a battle about pride or even my own needs or wants.  It is a fulfillment of truth and justice and the oath I took when I joined the U.S. military and which our founding fathers also shared and this goal is more important to me than comfort, property, or life itself:

“I do solemnly swear to uphold the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic, so help me God.”

3. ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES REGARDING TAX LIABILITY:

In addition to the above issues raised, several other important considerations bear on my tax situation and explain why the  taxable income reported on the 3525’s and 540X’s in Ref. (2) for years 1998 and 1999 is zero:

1.        I have included Encls. (2) and (3) to initiate my refund of all state taxes paid for the year 2000.  Please use the form 3525 form included with Ref. (2) as the W-2 information, as it is still accurate.  The original incorrect and therefore VOIDED W-2 forms provided by my employer are included only for completeness, but you are advised NOT to use these forms.  They are substantially incorrect in reporting that I have taxable wage income as a resident of California.

2.        California Form 590 indicates that residents of California are exempt from state income taxes and withholding.  The form states:

I certify that for the reasons checked below, the entity or individual named on this form is exempt from California income tax withholding requirements on payment(s) made to the entity or individual.  Read the following carefully and check the box that applies to the vendor/payee:

ٱ Individuals—Certification of Residency

B. Law

R&TC Section 18662 and the related regulations require withholding of income or franchise tax on payments of California source income made to nonresidents of this state.

Naturally, it stands to reason from the above that if a resident of California is not liable to withhold, then they are also not liable to pay California income taxes.  During Ref. (3), Patrick indicated that the FTB form 590 was “only for independent contractors and self-employment only” and that “the form doesn’t apply to employees like you.”  That was clearly mistaken and misleading advice that I told him did not satisfy me and was completely inconsistent with the content of the FTB form 590 and all of the laws cited in this correspondence and Ref. (2).  I asked him if he could legally justify it further, and he stated he couldn’t, and refused to provide me with a phone number of a person in the FTB who could, which I thought was rude and disrespectful.

3.        The year 2000 Form 540 booklet says on page 4, footnote 1 under the requirements table:

“California gross income is all income you received in the form of money, goods, property, and services from all sources that is not exempt from tax.”

The code does not explicitly need to state that gross income must be exempt in order for it to be exempt.  This explains why my gross income listed on FTB form 540 line 12 and FTB form 540X line 1(a) MUST be zero, since I am a resident with no taxable income.

4.        You will note that “nonresidents” only include those persons who live “in this State”, which on the surface seams like an oxymoron, but begins to make sense when this area is properly understood to mean the federal areas within the California Republic ceded to the federal government as described in sections 17018 and 6017 of the R&TC and 4 U.S.C. sections 105-113.  Section 17951 of the R&TC confirms this:

17951.  In the case of nonresident taxpayers the gross income includes only the gross income from sources within this State [meaning that portion of U.S. possessions that reside within California under the Buck Act found in 4 U.S.C. §§105-115, not to include the nonfederal areas within California, as defined in R&TC section 17018 and repeated in section 6017].

Note that this is the ONLY place in the entire R&TC that states that ANY kind of gross income is taxable for the purposes of personal income taxes, and therefore this section is the only legitimate source of involuntary income tax revenue within the R&TC.  Consequently, my TAXABLE gross income listed on FTB form 540 line 12 and FTB form 540X line 1(a) MUST be zero as a resident of California, which is why I wrote zero.  This leads one to question why there is a 540 form at all, and why the 540NR (nonresident) form isn’t more appropriate.  The confusion by the FTB appears to be deliberate to deceive sovereign Citizens into paying income taxes they aren’t liable for by not explaining in the 540 booklet the meaning of “State wages” and “State”.  Se table 1 below for further details on this subject.

5.        Why is it that California can only tax “nonresidents”, which only includes those individuals living in federal territories and possessions within California?  Because according to the u.S. Supreme Court in Downes v. Bidwell, 182 U.S. 244, 1901:

"CONSTITUTIONAL RESTRICTIONS AND LIMITATIONS [Bill of Rights] WERE NOT APPLICABLE to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions over which Congress had EXCLUSIVE LEGISLATIVE JURISDICTION"

6.        You will also note that a person who claims to be a “U.S. resident” on his 1040 form is saying he lives in the District of Columbia or other U.S. possession, which means he can’t be a resident of California and therefore is a nonresident who falls under section 17951 of the R&TC.  Since such a person is effectively a nonresident of California, and he is liable for payment of California income taxes because he presumably lives in a federal area without constitutional protections (the Bill of Rights).  Furthermore, those who pay the graduated federal or state income tax have actually made an (often unknowing) election to treat their income as “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States”, which is equivalent to stating, in effect, that they are an elected or appointed U.S. political official (Congressman, for instance) living in a federal possession subject to the jurisdiction of the United States (which we all know is a physical impossibility if they reside in California).  Thus, one could say that federal tax laws have legalized lying and fraud as a convenience to maximize both state and federal income tax revenues!  And because the graduated income taxes is, in most cases, lower than that for individuals who claim their correct status as nonresident aliens, the legalization of this lying was done in the name of saving taxes!  However, regardless of what a person elects to say, the courts are obligated to judge the applicability of tax laws on the bases of facts, and not legalized fraud and therefore the state still can’t use distraint on a person who in fact resides in a nonfederal territory within California.  See the following for further explanation:

26 U.S.C. §871(b)(2)-GRADUATED RATE OF TAX…

“(2) DETERMINATION OF TAXABLE INCOME.—In determining taxable income…gross income includes ONLY gross income which is effectively connected with the conduct of a TRADE OR BUSINESS within the United States.”

26 U.S.C. §7701(a)(26) Definitions.  Trade or Business.  The term “trade or business” includes [only] the performance of the functions of a public office.”

_______________________________________________________________________

Following is a definition of “public office”:

*Public Office, pursuant to Black’s Law Dictionary, Abridged 6^th Edition, means:

“Essential characteristics of a ‘public office’ are:

(1)    Authority conferred by law,

(2)    Fixed tenure of office, and

(3)    Power to exercise some of the sovereign functions of government.

(4)    Key element of such test is that “officer is carrying out a sovereign function’.

(5)    Essential elements to establish public position as ‘public office’ are:

(a)    Position must be created by Constitution, legislature, or through authority conferred by legislature.

(b)    Portion of sovereign power of government must be delegated to position,

(c)    Duties and powers must be defined, directly or implied, by legislature or through legislative authority.

(d)    Duties must be performed independently without control of superior power other than law, and

(e)    Position must have some permanency.”

7.        I have been a resident of California since 1984 and I have documentation to prove it.  Therefore, I am exempt from California income tax withholding and liability and income tax liability.  I would be happy to provide evidence of my residency if you like, but the mailing address you have on record and used for me for the past 16 years and my past year tax returns ought to be sufficient.

8.        I am NOT a citizen or resident of the “United States” defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701 and Ref. (2), which includes only the District of Columbia or the Federal territories or possessions or areas within the borders of sovereign states nor have I ever been.  Therefore, being a California resident does not make me a United States resident or even a citizen of the “United States” (D.C. and federal areas).  As a matter of fact, I have expatriated my federal citizenship below in section 6.  Instead, I am a United States of America resident of the several states, which means I am a resident of the first and third definitions of “United States” but not the second definition shown below:

United States:  “This term has several meanings.  It may be merely [1]  the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in family of nations, [2] it may designate territory over which sovereignty of the United States extends, or [3] it may be collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.  Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, U.S. v. Ohio, 324 U.S. 652, 65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

9.        The period covered by Ref. (2) (my amended returns for 1998-1999) above includes the period during which I was a resident of California.

10.     The reason for my reporting taxable income and gross of “zero” in Ref. (1) is that I have no taxable income during the period covered by the tax returns in question.  It is my understanding that the purpose of the W-2 form is to report TAXABLE income, which I had none of during 1998-2000, and which my employer misreported during that period.  Your own agent Patrick, during Ref. (4), confirmed that “the W-2 only lists taxable income”, to use his words.

11.     Even if I presented to you the inaccurate W-2 forms provided by my employer documenting my alleged taxable wage income, that would not make said wages taxable.  I therefore see no reason why there is a need to report any taxable income whatsoever and would like my privacy respected by not being asked for additional information about my nontaxable income.  My original returns stand exactly as they are for 1998 and 1999.

12.     I have provided VOIDED copies of the ERRONEOUS W-2’s for the two tax years in question (1998-1999), but I wish to emphasize that they are incorrect for the reasons stated, but are submitted for the purposes of demonstrating that I had gross income but not taxable income during the tax years 1998 through 2000.  These W-2 forms DO NOT constitute an additional return, but simply a clarification of the information provided with Ref. (2).

13.     Under section 17018 of the Revenue and Taxation code, “State” is defined as follows:

17018.  "State" includes the District of Columbia, and the possessions of the United States.

Possessions of the “United States” DO NOT include California or any other sovereign state, but do include federal areas within the borders of the sovereign states.  You will note that I do not now and never have lived in “this State” as defined above or in R&TC §6017 for at least the past 16 years, which makes me not liable for the payment of California “State” income taxes as confirmed by the content of California form 590.  If I had lived in “this State”, however, then I would indeed be liable for the payment of State income taxes because I would be a nonresident of California.

14.     .Line 1(a) of FTB form 540X says “State wages.  See instructions”.  Line 12 of California form 540 says “State wages from your form(s) W-2, box 17”.  You will note that the word “State” is capitalized in these two conspicuous locations just as it was in sections 17018 and 6017 of the Revenue and Taxation Code so that it MUST refer to federal areas within California.  It would also appear that the word was deliberately put at the beginning of the line by crafty tax attorneys to create confusion in the mind of Citizens over which capitalization applies, thus making it easy to make a mistake in misinterpreting it as really meaning “state” instead of its proper form “State”.  Since “State” is defined above as “District of Columbia and the possessions of the United States”, and since I don’t live in these areas because I am a resident of California (but not “the State of California”, then I’m not liable for tax on my income, and none of the said income appearing on any of the erroneous W-2 forms provided by my employer(s) reflects the correct taxable income on block 17.  Therefore, I can’t truthfully fill in anything other than a “0” in block 12 of my California 540 or block 1(a) of the 540X forms that were included with Ref. (2).  These conclusions are consistent with the FTB form 590 Exemption from Withholding discussed earlier.    The above confusion over the term “State” on the 540 form in the FTB Resident booklet needs to be clarified and made to be consistent with section 17018 of the R&TC, so that Citizens who aren’t liable for paying California income taxes aren’t inadvertently deceived into paying anyway.

15.     Without any constitutional rights above for residents of “the State of California” as defined in section 17018, its easy to lawfully coerce and distraint people to file tax returns involuntarily, and thereby violate their First, Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth amendment protections as explained exhaustively in Ref. (2).  I, however, as a resident of California, insist that my constitutional rights be respected and have renounced my 14^th Amendment federal citizenship in sections 5 and 6 below.  This places me outside of “the State of California” (federal areas within California) but inside of nonfederal areas of California, and restores my Constitutional rights.

16.     Pursuant to R&TC section 18521, I wish to state that I have been filing the wrong federal tax form since 1978.  I have been incorrectly filing IRS form 1040 all those years when the correct form is IRS form 1040NR.  The fact that I was a nonresident for federal returns simply means that I did not reside in any federal territory or the District of Columbia (see the definitions of the terms “State” and “United States” in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701).

17.     The correct form for California tax returns for me since 1978 is and always has been the form 540, but all forms I filed since 1978 should have had a “zero” amount in block 12 because I was a resident of California and not “the State of California”.  Please update my status according to the below.

18521(a)(2) If the Franchise Tax Board determines that the filing status used on the taxpayer's federal income tax return was incorrect, the Franchise Tax Board may, under Section 19033 (relating to deficiency assessments), revise the return to reflect a correct filing status.

18.     I realize that the state and federal filing statuses don’t agree above, and I realize that my state filing status is in conflict with my federal filing status according to the following code:

18521.  (a) (1) Except as otherwise provided in this section, an individual shall use the same filing status that he or she used on his or her federal income tax return filed for the same taxable year.

The above amounts to an admission that the meaning of “resident” and “nonresident” is the same for both state and federal returns, and that the reference point for state taxes is NOT California residency, but U.S. Residency.  However, both I and you (who presumably also live in the nonfederal areas of California) would be committing fraud and perjury to file any other way than as a resident for California and a nonresident for my federal return, and I simply cannot honor and you should not honor this clearly unjust law because it would result in an incorrect state income tax liability and perjury on my part.  The law in question may apply to most individuals, who are in most cases state Citizens and 14^th Amendment federal citizens and who elect to be treated as residing only in the federal territories, but the law clearly does not address my circumstance, where I am a sovereign Natural Born State Citizen but not a federal 14^th Amendment citizen or resident, and a citizen of United States of America the Country, but not a federal or municipal corporate U.S. citizen located in the District of Columbia or federal territory.  It should not be the purpose of any law to mandate fraud, and I’m sure that not following this law in my case would not subject you to criminal liability because no judge or jury in their right mind would penalize you for refusing to commit fraud.

19.     State and federal taxing jurisdictions are territorially mutually exclusive and foreign to each other, and both the state and federal jurisdictions have their own citizens, privileges, and immunities.  It is a physical and legal impossibility for me to be domiciled in such a way that I am a resident of both jurisdictions or subject to tax in both jurisdictions simultaneously without committing perjury in the process of claiming that my income is “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States” as a sovereign Citizen of California living in nonfederal areas of California.

"It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances of the individual. Of the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States and of the privileges and immunities of the citizen of the state, and what they respectfully are, we will presently consider; but we wish to state here that it is only the former which are placed by this clause under the protection of the Federal Constitution, and the latter, whatever they may be, are not intended to have any additional protection by this paragraph of the amendment."

[Slaughterhouse Cases,  16 Wall. 36, 71]

"Both before and after the Fourteenth Amendment to the federal Constitution, it has not been necessary for a person to be a citizen of the United States in order to be a citizen of his state."

[U.S. v. Cruikshank,  92 US 542, 549 (1875)]

This explains why I can be a resident of one and a nonresident alien of the other as explained in section 5 below, where I define “United States”, “foreign”, “foreign government”, “state”, etc.  You will also note that one does not lose one’s constitutional rights by virtue of not being a 14^th Amendment federal citizen.  One can apparently lose their “privileges and immunities”, but NOT their constitutional rights, because rights constrain the actions of government and are not incident to citizenship.

20.     For your benefit, let me summarize the findings and legal research in this section for the purpose of California  personal income tax found in R&TC §17001-18776 and federal income tax found in 26 U.S.C./IRC.  A nonfederal area is anything outside of “State” as defined in R&TC section 17018:

Table 1: Federal and state income tax liability by residency.

Location of domicile/physical residence but not workplace	California Residency Status	California Personal Income Tax Liability and correct form(s) to file	United States (federal territories) residency status (see 26 U.S.C. §7701 definition of “United States”)	Federal income  tax liability and correct form(s) to file	U.S.(the country) citizenship
Nonfederal areas of California	Resident	Not liable File FTB 540 for refunds of any state taxes erroneously withheld (see FTB form 590, which states residents don’t have to withhold)	Nonresident	Not liable on California source income. Liable on federal source income identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. File IRS form 1040.	Citizen
				Not liable on California source income. Liable on federal source income identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. File IRS form 1040NR.	Alien
Nonfederal areas of other States	Nonresident	Liable for California source income if not taxed in other state. File FTB form 540NR	Nonresident	Not liable on other state source income. Liable on federal source income identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. File IRS form 1040.	Citizen
				Not liable on other state source income. Liable for federal source income identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. File IRS form 1040NR.	Alien
Federal areas inside California	Nonresident	Liable on California source income and federal source income from within the state. File FTB 540.	Resident	Liable for federal source income identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. File IRS form 1040. and include only federal source income but not income from nonfederal parts of California.	Citizen
				Liable for federal source income identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8. File IRS form 1040NR and put only federal source income.	Alien
Outside of United States of America (the country and not the federal areas)	Nonresident	Liable on California source income.	Nonresident	Liable for income originating inside federal areas. Not liable for income originating inside nonfederal areas within states. File IRS form 2555 for income from “foreign countries” and 1040 for income from federal territories identified in 26 C.F.R. 1.861-8.	Citizen
				Not liable. File IRS form 1040NR for taxes erroneously withheld.	Alien

NOTES:

1.        You can read the California Revenue and Taxation Code (R&TC) for yourself on the web at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/cgi-bin/calawquery?codesection=rtc&codebody=&hits=20

2.        Why don’t the state a federal income tax publications reflect the above considerations?  We can only assume that it is because the FTB wants to simplify these publications and because it wants to maximize revenues from income taxation.

 21.       I ask that you not apply distraint or duress to get me to illegally surrender my constitutional rights in responding to your strong-arm tactics and demands by:

21.1.            Forcing me to communicate with my government on a tax return, which violates my First Amendment right of free expression.

21.2.            Forcing me to violate my own privacy by involuntarily revealing intimate details about my private financial affairs to third parties, which violates my Fourth Amendment right of privacy. (see Weeks v. United States, 232 U.S. 383  (1914)  for information about excluding illegally obtained evidence).  I WILL NOT reveal the existence of any records you might want to subpoena, so don’t bother harassing me or deposing me because you will get NOTHING.

21.3.            Incriminate myself under duress from you as indicated in section 4 below, in violation of my Fifth Amendment right.  Incidentally, the fifth Amendment right of non-self-incrimination includes civil matters as well as criminal matters according to Barron’s Legal Dictionary:[1]

SELF-INCRIMINATION, PRIVILEGE AGAINST:

the constitutional right of a person [in this case they mean a natural born person, instead of a “corporation”, which is also a “person” from the perspective of the tax code]  to refuse to answer questions or otherwise give testimony against himself or herself which will subject him or her to an incrimination.  This right under the Fifth Amendment (often called simply PLEADING THE FIFTH AMENDMENT) is now applicable to the states through the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, 378 U.S. 1, 8, and is applicable in any situation, civil or criminal, where the state attempts to compel incriminating testimony.  See 378 U.S. 52, 94.  The right may be waived where the defendant testifies , 356 U.S. 148, 157, and the privilege does not preclude the use of voluntary confessions, provided that the requirements of the Miranda rule have been complied with.  384 U.S. 436, 478.

The requisite compulsion will include any threat calculated to interfere with the unfettered free will of the suspect.  Thus, the privilege has been held to bar the dismissal of a police officer for refusal to testify regarding matters that might incriminate him or her and for refusal to waive immunity from prosecution if forced to testify.  392 U.S. 273.  The testimony could not validly be used, as "the protection of the individual under the Fourteenth Amendment against coerced statements prohibits use in subsequent criminal proceedings of statements obtained under threat of removal from office, and that extends to all, whether they are policemen or members of our body politic.  385 U.S. 493, 500.

In general, only criminal sanctions are within privilege and testimony can be compelled despite the personal, social, or economic costs to the witness.  For example, a mother having no statutory evidentiary privilege could be compelled to testify against her child and would not be able to plead the privilege against self-incrimination unless she too feared a personal criminal sanction.  If she persisted in her refusal to testify, she could be found in contempt

[...skipped irrelevant sections...]

The privilege can be displaced by a grant of TESTIMONIAL [USE} IMMUNITY which guarantees that neither the compelled testimony nor any fruits will be used against the witness.  Given such immunity, the witness can no longer fear incrimination and thus cannot plead the privilege against self-incrimination, 406 U.S. 441; 406 U.S. 472.  Some states give such witnesses a broader form of TRANSACTIONAL IMMUNITY which protects them not merely from use of their testimony but from any prosecution brought about relating to transactions about which relevant testimony was elicited.  see, e.g. N.Y. Crim. Proc. Law §50.10 (McKinney).  Transactional immunity was previously the federal standard, 18 U.S.C. §2514, but was replaced in 1970 by testimonial immunity, 18 U.S.C. §6002.  Immunity from federal prosecution may only be given by a federal prosecutor, not a judge.  As such, a witness may invoke a broad self-incrimination privilege in a civil suit, in which the federal prosecutor is not involved.  See 103 S. Ct. 608. Once granted immunity, a witness who refuses to testify can be punished for contempt.  The privilege against self-incrimination, like all constitutional rights, may be waived.  Miranda warnings are generally necessary before such a waiver will be found to qualify a confession as admissible evidence for a criminal trial.

The rule does not extend to nontestimonial compulsion.  Thus, blood tests may be compelled from the accused because they are "noncommunicative," i.e., the evidence is considered physical or real and not testimonial so as to invoke the protection of the privilege.  On the same reasoning, the Court has permitted compelled line-ups,  388 U.S. 218, 221, and handwritten exemplars. 388 U.S. 263, 266.

22.     Please keep a copy of this correspondence for the future in my administrative record, because I have stopped my state income tax withholding and will not be paying any more state income tax in the future but I will be filing zero returns or refunds to avoid willful failure to file charges, and these returns will be sent to a remailer service to protect my privacy.  This is your last opportunity to refute the positions advocated in this letter, or else the allegations and claims contained in it shall constitute admitted facts on your part in accordance with the protocols established in the opening paragraph of this letter and UCC 1.205.  I ask that you resist the temptation to harass, threaten, stalk, or mail threatening communications (and especially anonymous threatening communications) to me in the future about failure to file state income tax returns when you have failed to establish my liability and the concept of me having any liability is clearly in conflict with the content of your own California FTB form 590 as a resident of California.

23.     The misinformation promoted by the FTB telephone support people as follows constitutes a Constructive Fraud upon the sovereign Natural Born Citizens of California (but not “the State of California” or “this State”) that is unconscionable and pathetic and requires an immediate remedy by your agency.  The fraud is perpetuated by:

23.1.            Avoidance of talking about the legal foundations for their beliefs

23.2.            Overdependence on incomplete and inaccurate FTB publications which do not have the force of law

23.3.            Unwillingness to explain or clarification the legal in your publications (including the 540 booklet) about the issues raised in this letter.

This fraud and extortion also makes you personally liable if you allow it to continue or don’t expose it, as your avoidance of exposing it constitutes a “conspiracy to commit fraud and extortion under the color of office”, which is punishable under the following codes (see http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/calaw.html to read them for yourself):

·         18 U.S.C.S. §241 Conspiracy Against Rights of Citizens

·         Penal code §646.9(a):  Stalking

·         Penal code §182:  Criminal Conspiracy; Acts Constituting; Punishment; Venue

·         Penal code §§518-527: Extortion

·         Penal code §523:  Punishment for mailing threatening communications to effect extortion

·         Penal code §§186.9-186.11: Money laundering, fraud, and embezzlement

·         Civil Code §§3439-3439.12: Fraudulent Instruments and Transfers

I will have the benefit of the wisdom of 24,000 people who have read my writings at http://famguardian.org in prosecuting you as well.  In addition, such a “lawless” violation of due process will earn you and everyone at the FTB who practices it a place in HELL!  In Jesus’ (God’s) own words in Matthew 13:41-43 (and let’s not forget that Matthew was the ONLY Apostle of Jesus who had been a tax collector and reformed his ways!):

“The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, and will cast them into the furnace of fire.  There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth.  Then the righteous will shine forth as the un in the kingdom of their Father.  He who has ears, let him hear!”

There’s clearly a warm spot waiting for you in HELL in a few years if you don’t heed what is in this letter, and perhaps the end will come sooner than you think through God’s influence or your own arrogance and evil (this is NOT a threat, but a good possibility and a reward for your deeds while employed with the FTB).

24.     It would be an obvious violation of ethics, morality, good sense, Christian (and most other religious) virtues and teachings, and integrity on your part, having learned and been exposed to the truths in this letter and not being able to refute them, to not remind residents of California who have source addresses on their tax returns that are not in federal areas within California that they are NOT liable for the payment of state income taxes and can keep all their money. 

“Therefore, to him who knows to do good [and has been exposed to the truth] and does not do it, to him it is sin.” (Bible, James 4:17)

It would also be a violation of the government code of ethics (as revealed in Enclosure (3) of Ref. (2)) to not bring what you have learned in this letter to the attention of everyone you work with, and make sure they have read and understand this letter as well and are properly applying the tax laws to respect the rights of residents of California to NOT pay state income taxes.  I therefore encourage you to approach your supervisor about the content of this letter and request that you provide information about the FTB personnel you have exposed this letter.  If you have further questions about the truths in this letter, then you are encouraged to visit the website at http://famguardian.org and download the free 1200+ page book on the subject of the income tax fraud entitled The Great IRS Hoax:  Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax.  That book will literally blow your mind when you finally understand the fraud that your federal and state governments have pulled on us called the income tax.  I guarantee you will never again view your government the same after you read that book.

25.     As I told Patrick of the Franchise Tax Board during Ref. (3) (station number 4436), I recognize that you might be tempted to identify this affidavit as “frivolous”, as I understand that this approach is a commonplace scare (FUD-Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt) tactic used by your agency to perpetuate what is called the “Great Deception” documented in chapter 5 of enclosure (4) of Ref. (2).  Because each and every assertion made in this correspondence is founded in law and backed up by extensive legal research and signed under penalty of perjury, however, that sort of label would be entirely inappropriate, “frivolous”, and would unnecessarily aggravate and frustrate the effectiveness of any administrative dealings we might have with each other in the future.  For these reasons, I insist that all such communication initiated by you and intended for me be in writing, and that they be sent only to my address above.  Such aggravation on your part (as indicated above) of the good faith dealings I am trying to establish with you would only add to the legal fees and civil damages I might be likely to ask for later in the event there was a need to litigate to protect my property rights under the 5^th Amend of the U.S. Constitution.  I’d have to say that it would be equally “frivolous” and negligent on your part to implement any of the following unscrupulous FUD (Fear, Uncertainty, and Doubt-scare) tactics:

·         Referring to the FTB or IRS Publications in your response, which as I have said are completely irrelevant, as a justification for any of your conclusions or findings, rather than relying entirely and only on the California Codes, the U.S. Codes, or C.F.R.’s as requested.

·         Not responding to, or trying to stonewall this correspondence or the legal conclusions contained in it (which I am told frequently happens), which is why it has been sent certified mail with a legal “Proof of Service”.

·         Saying “the courts have repeatedly ruled against this or that argument” without referring explicitly to the state, federal, or supreme court case number and matter name that proves your point, and explaining your legal analysis of that case conclusively and completely.

·         Arbitrarily refusing a refund without explanation or legal justification (a violation of the 5^th Amendment and 6^th Amendment, which requires that I know the charges against me and can face my accuser and examine the evidence.).

·         Intimidation or threats or other types of “political posturing” you or the FTB  might feel compelled to implement in my case (not unlike that documented on page 11A of the USA Today Newspaper dated March 2, 2001).

·         Not addressing the legal issues raised here directly in the event that your agency cannot refute them.

4. AFFIDAVIT OF RESCISSION OF PAST SIGNATURES

I, __________________ , Citizen of California (not “the State of California” defined in R&TC Sections 6017 and 17018, which are synonymous) and domiciled in San Diego County, California, one of the American union States and “without” the United States defined in 26 U.S.C. section 7701, do hereby extinguish, rescind, revoke, cancel, abrogate, annul, nullify, discharge, and make void ab initio all signatures, belonging to me, on all previously filed Internal Revenue Service, W-4 Forms (other than EXEMPT W-4’s), 1040 Forms (that are not part of Ref. (1)) and all California 540 Income Tax Forms and all powers of attorneys, real and implied, connected thereto and over the period 1978 to 1999, on the grounds that my purported consent was not voluntarily and freely obtained, but was made through mistake, duress, fraud, and undue influence exercised by your agency and my employer.  Pursuant to Contract Law: “All 1040 (not part of Ref. (1)) and W-4 Forms (other than EXEMPT W-4’s) are, hereby, extinguished by this rescission.”.

Rescission: (Black’s 6^th Edition Law Dictionary) “To abrogate, annul, avoid, or cancel a contract; particularly, nullifying a contract by the act of a party.  The right of rescission is the right to cancel (rescind) a contract upon the occurrence of certain kinds of default by the contracting party.  To declare a contract void in its inception and to put an end to it as though it never were.  Russel v. Stephens, 191 Wash. 314, 71 P.2d 3031…A rescission amounts to the unmaking of a contract, or an undoing of it from the beginning.  It necessarily involves a repudiation of the contract and a refusal of the moving party to be bound by it…”

I was induced by fraud and duress to sign such forms and I was denied full disclosure of the voluntary nature of such forms.  I was mislead by those who knew, or should have known, into believing that filing such forms was mandatory and/or implied, were inconscionable and grossly unfair to me.  I was unduly influenced by the stronger bargaining power of my employer, the Internal Revenue Service and the State Tax agency, and acted under an implied threat and fear of losing my job and my property and out of fear of potential imprisonment for non-compliance.  Any alleged consent is null and void as it was given under duress, by mistake, and by fraud. 

Duress:  (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, page 504) “Any unlawful threat or coercion used by a person to induce another to act (or to refrain from acting) in a manner he or she otherwise would not (or would).  Subjecting person to improper pressure which overcomes his will and coerces him to comply with demand to which he would not yield if acting as free agent.  Head v. Gadsden Civil Service Bd., Ala.Civ.App., 389 So.2d 516, 519.  Application of such pressure or constraint as compels man to go against his will, and takes away his free agency, destroying power of refusing to comply with unjust demands of another.  Haumont v. Security State Bank, 220 Neb. 809, 374 N.W.2d 2,6.

Duress may be a defense to a criminal act, breach of contract, or tort because an act to be criminal or one which constitutes a breach of contract or a tort must be voluntary to create liability or responsibility

A contract entered into under duress by physical compulsion is void.  Also, if  a party’s manifestation of assent to a contract is induced by an improper threat by the other party that leaves the victim no reasonable alternative, the contract is voidable by the victim.  Restatement, Second, Contracts §§174, 175.

As a defense to a civil action, it must be pleaded affirmatively.  Fed.R.Civil P. 8(c ).

As an affirmative defense in criminal law, one who, under the pressure of an unlawful threat from another human being to harm him (or to harm a third person), commits what would otherwise be a crime may, under some circumstances, be justified in doing what he did and thus not be guilty of the crime in question.  See Model Penal Code §2.09.  See also Coercion; Economic duress; Extortion; Undue influence.”

Below is a list of the types of compulsion and duress applied by you and the IRS which have restricted the free exercise of my Fifth Amendment rights and has caused me in the past to file 540 and 1040 forms involuntarily and under duress:

·         Your threatening correspondence of Ref. (1) above, in which you threatened $1,000 in fines for allegedly frivolous returns, a 25% penalty for failure to file a return by the due date, even though I provided a  return that I still say is accurate in Ref. (2).  A $69 enforcement fee.  This kind of disrespectful, threatening, and harassing correspondence does not permit me to sign anything voluntarily that I might send to you.

·         Penalties under sections 19131-19132 and 19177 through 19179 of the California R&TC:

o        19131 Failure to file

o        19132 Penalties

o        19177 Abusive tax shelters

o        19178 Aiding or abetting understatement of tax liability

o        19179 Frivolous returns

·         Scare stories from my coworkers and friends about mistreatment by the Franchise Tax Board and the Internal Revenue Service, including strong-arm tactics like your Ref. (1), levies, liens, and seizures.

·         26 U.S.C. Sec, 7201:  Attempt to evade or defeat tax (up to $100,000 fine or imprisonment not more than 5 years along with attorney fees).

·         26 U.S.C. Sec, 7203:  Willful Failure to File (fine up to $25,000 or imprisonment for one year or both)

·         Hundreds of different penalties for late filing or underpayment, as documented in Part 20 of the Internal Revenue Manual, available at: http://www.irs.gov/prod/bus_info/tax_pro/irm-part/part20.html

·         IRS Liens and levies being imposed for nonpayment of taxes.

·         Receipt of threatening mail communications from the IRS (e.g. CP-515 “Notice of Deficiency” and subsequent Notice of Lien and Levy”).

·         Constant anxiety from and harassment by IRS agents (by telephone and otherwise).

I would be committing perjury to submit another state income tax return and state that it was “voluntary”, or without putting “duress” or “distraint” near my signature.  Let’s define the word “voluntary” for the record to remove all doubt:

voluntary:   “Unconstrained by interference; unimpelled by another’s influence; spontaneous; acting of oneself.  Coker v. State, 199 Ga. 20, 33 S.E.2d 171, 174.  Done by design or intention.  Proceeding from the free and unrestrained will of the person.  Produced in or by an act of choice.  Resulting from free choice, without compulsion or solicitation.  The word, especially in statutes, often implies knowledge of essential facts.  Without valuable consideration; gratuitous, as a voluntary conveyance.  Also, having a merely nominal consideration; as, a voluntary deed.”
[Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition, page 1575]

Notwithstanding any information which you may have to the contrary, any forms that have been filed, and any implied quasi contracts that you may feel you have with me, were filed illegally and unlawfully and are without force/and or effect.

I further revoke, rescind, and make void ab initio all powers of attorney pertaining to me for any and all governmental/quasi/colorable agencies and/or Departments created under the authority of Art. I, Sec. 8, Cl. 17, and/or Art. IV, Sec. 3, Cl. 2 of the Constitution of the United States.

It is (and always has been) my desire that any elections I might make relative to federal income taxes not be allowed to impact any of my state returns, including any alleged elections described in 26 C.F.R. 1.871-10 that might have been made to treat my income as “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States”.  I am sorry if I did not communicate this to you sooner or if you may have missed such an intent earlier expressed.

5. REVOCATION OF 26 C.F.R. 1.871-10 ELECTION:

In accordance with 26 C.F.R. 1.871-10(d)(2)(iii), this Legal Notice has been submitted to the IRS in pursuit of a Revocation of Election to treat any or all of my income from real property as a federal nonresident alien from being considered by the IRS as “effectively connected with a trade or business in the ‘United States’”, as defined in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701.  It is provided to you as well for your information, in the event that it impacts my state income tax liability.  Information about myself in fulfillment with the above C.F.R. is as follows:

1.        Name:  _______________________________

2.        Address:  __________________________________

3.        SSN:  _____________

4.        Applicable taxable year(s):__Current and all prior tax years__

5.        Grounds for the request:  My constitutional right to life, liberty, pursuit of happiness, privacy, respect, the fruits of my common right labors under common law, and the right to own and control property (including labor and the fruits of my labor) without any interference from government.

This Legal Notice is by no means an admission in any way that I ever made a Election to treat any of my income or assets as “effectively connected with a trade or business in the United States”, but instead is submitted to ensure that my status is properly reflected in your records and that you do indeed concur with and respect this notification.  I do not now nor have I ever lived in the ‘United States’ as defined in 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701, nor do I have any intentions of doing so in the future.  I am sorry if I ever gave you the idea that I did by, for instance, mistakenly filing an IRS form 1040 in the past, which was the incorrect form. 

Please note that I already have an IRS form W-8 on file with my employer and have accurately declared myself to be a Nonresident Alien.  I reside outside the foreign jurisdiction to which the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) operates, which is the District of Columbia and federal territories:

“The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a state.”

N.Y. re: Merriam, 36 N.E. 505, 141 N.Y. 479, Affirmed 16 S.Ct. 1973, 41 L.Ed. 287

“In the United States of America, there are two (2) separated and distinct jurisdictions, such being the jurisdiction of the states within their own state boundaries, and the other being federal jurisdiction (United States), which is limited to the District of Columbia, the U.S. Territories, and federal enclaves within the states, under Article I, Section 8, Clause 17." Bevans v. United States, 16 U.S. 336 (1818).

“State: The term ''State'' shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.”  26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701

“United States: The term ''United States'' when used in a geographical sense includes [is limited to] only the States [the District of Columbia and other federal territories within the borders of the states] and the District of Columbia.” 26 U.S.C. Sec. 7701

“A canon of construction which teaches that of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.” U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222 (1949)

“The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States ex- [324 U.S. 652, 672]   tends, or it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.”  Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 1945.

Foreign government:  “The government of the United States of America, as distinguished from the government of the several states.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 5^th Edition)

Foreign Laws:  “The laws of a foreign country or sister state.” (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

Foreign States:  “Nations outside of the United States…Term may also refer to another state; i.e. a sister state.  The term ‘foreign nations’, …should be construed to mean all nations and states other than that in which the action is brought; and hence, one state of the Union is foreign to another, in that sense.”  (Black’s Law Dictionary, 6^th Edition)

Treasury Decision 3980, Vol. 29, January-December, 1927, pgs. 64 and 65 defines the words includes and including as: “(1) To comprise, comprehend, or embrace…(2) To enclose within; contain; confine…But granting that the word ‘including’ is a term of enlargement, it is clear that it only performs that office by introducing the specific elements constituting the enlargement.  It thus, and thus only, enlarges the otherwise more limited, preceding general language…The word ‘including’ is obviously used in the sense of its synonyms, comprising; comprehending; embracing.”

“Includes is a word of limitation.  Where a general term in Statute is followed by the word, ‘including’ the primary import of the specific words following the quoted words is to indicate restriction rather than enlargement.  Powers ex re. Covon v. Charron R.I., 135 A. 2^nd 829, 832 Definitions-Words and Phrases pages 156-156, Words and Phrases under ‘limitations’.”

“In the interpretation of statutes levying taxes, it is the established rule not to extend their provisions by implication beyond the clear import of the language used, or to enlarge their operations so as to embrace matters not specifically pointed out.  In case of doubt they are construed most strongly against the government and in favor of the citizen.”  Gould v. Gould, 245 U.S. 151, at 153.

Thank you for your prompt and expeditious processing of this Revocation of Election.  Please forward your certification and response to my address above.  I respectfully request that you give a detailed explanation and legal justification of any determination or basis you might make regarding the disposition of this notification. This includes citing any authority you are exercising and the regulation or statute from which it derives, as well as any court cites, Treasury Decisions, etc that may be relevant to the foundation of your delegated authority for making a determination of disposition.  This letter shall serve as formal legal notice that if you DO NOT respond within 45 days, then by your default and silence, the Revocation of Election is granted and there is no need to further contact us.

I affirm, under penalty of perjury, under the Common Law of America, without the "United States", that the foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my current information, knowledge, and belief, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1); and

6. EXPATRIATION FROM FEDERAL (but not country) U.S.** CITIZENSHIP:

I, _______________________, a Sovereign Natural Born Citizen of California, do hereby voluntarily relinquish any presumptive 14^th Amendment citizenship status and any privileges and immunities granted therein from the date of my birth to the present.  I retain my natural born status of a Citizen of one of the several union States of America under the Constitution and law, and my Citizenship in these United States of America.  I preserve all my unalienable Rights that are inherent from my Creator, at all times.  I waive no rights at any time, including by operation of any implied contract asserted by the government.   As a Natural Born Sovereign Citizen of the state, I have the same measure of citizenship in my country as our founding fathers and early citizens had, including Abraham Lincoln, George Washington, and Thomas Jefferson, all of whom had no 14^th Amendment citizenship because there was no 14^th Amendment at the time they were alive.

Accordingly, the status of my voter registration, IRS filing status, etc, have been updated to reflect the above considerations, and I have filed (or soon will file) with the U.S. Attorney General and the U.S. Secretary of State pursuant to 8 U.S.C. 1481(a)6 a formal affidavit of Renunciation of 14^th Amendment federal citizenship.  These acts and a formal notice in the newspaper complete the expatriation process.

I, do hereby declare my right to expatriate as absolute and declare that I expatriated from the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia as of the date of my birth and thereby voluntarily relinquished any res in trust, existing by operation of any presumptions about my citizenship, to the foreign jurisdiction known as the municipal corporation of the District of Columbia, a democracy, and thereby return to the Constitutional Republic envisioned by our founding fathers.  Any and all past and present political ties implied by operation of law or otherwise in trust with the democracy as a consequence of any presumed citizenship ties I might have, is hereby dissolved.

“Almost a century ago, Congress declared that "the right of expatriation [including expatriation from the District of Columbia or “U.S. Inc”, the corporation] is a natural and inherent right of all people, indispensable to the enjoyment of the rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness," and decreed that "any declaration, instruction, opinion, order, or decision of any officers of this government which denies, restricts, impairs, or questions the right of expatriation, is hereby declared inconsistent with the fundamental principles of this government." 15 Stat. 223-224 (1868), R.S. § 1999, 8 U.S.C. § 800 (1940).[2][1] Although designed to apply especially to the rights of immigrants to shed their foreign nationalities, that Act of Congress "is also broad enough to cover, and does cover, the corresponding natural and inherent right of American citizens to expatriate themselves." Savorgnan v. United States, 1950, 338 U.S. 491, 498 note 11, 70 S. Ct. 292, 296, 94 L. Ed. 287.[3][2] The Supreme Court has held that the Citizenship Act of 1907 and the Nationality Act of 1940 "are to be read in the light of the declaration of policy favoring freedom of expatriation which stands unrepealed." Id., 338 U.S. at pages 498-499, 70 S. Ct. at page 296.That same light, I think, illuminates 22 U.S.C.A. § 211a and 8 U.S.C.A.§ 1185.” 
[Walter Briehl v. John Foster Dulles, 284 F2d 561, 583 (1957)]

The U.S. supreme Court has declared in the case of Hooven and Allison v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652, 1945 that:

The term 'United States' may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely [1] the name of a sovereign occupying the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in the family of nations. [2] It may designate the territory over which the sovereignty of the United States extends [324 U.S. 652, 672] , or [3] it may be the collective name of the states which are united by and under the Constitution.

Be advised that I am not expatriating from “United States” the country (the first definition), but simply the municipal corporation located in District of Columbia and federal territories only, which is the second definition identified above.   Consequently, there is no way that I can meet the definition within the California R&TC of someone who lives in the “the State of California” or “this State”, within the meaning of R&TC section 6017 or 17018, which are synonymous.

Very Respectfully,

 

 

<<NAME>>

All Rights Reserved without Prejudice, U.C.C. §1-207

Private Attorney General, Sui Juris

 

 

PROOF OF SERVICE

 

I do hereby certify that I am an adult over 18 years of age and have served _______________________________________________(name of agency or person served) with a true copy of the within document (circle one) [personally]/[by Certified Mail with Return Receipt Requested]/(by dropping a sealed envelope in a sealed postal box) to the address above, from _______________________________________________________________ (location, city and state mail was sent from).  I further certify that the person originating this document is personally known to me and his identity has been proven by presentment of his Driver’s license and military ID card.

 

Date:_______________________

                               

______________________________________
(Signature of person serving)

 

ENCLOSURE (1)

<<NAME>>

<<SSN>>

<<ADDRESS>>

<<CITY>>, <<STATE>> <<ZIP>>

Phone: _______________

<<DATE>>

Patrick, Station number 4436

Franchise Tax Board

PO Box 942840

Sacramento, Calif  (94240-0000)

VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF DEFAULT

 

STATE OF CALIFORNIA   )

                      )

COUNTY OF ________   )

 

Affiant, having first hand knowledge concerning the facts contained herein, provides this Verified Affidavit of Default to Patrick (station number 4436) of the California Franchise Tax Board.  Affiant hereby deposes and states the facts as stated herein and attests that this Affidavit is true, correct, and complete.

1.    That the affiant, _____________________________, did mail to the Franchise Tax Board Affidavit(s), entitled “Request for Refund Affidavit for Calendar Years 1998 to 2000”, certified mail, dated April 11, 2001, at the above address, on 11 April, 2001.  This affidavit included 3 enclosures and a claim of no tax liability.

2.    Said Affidavit(s) by Agency as evidenced by Certified mail receipt number  #7000-0520-0018-7112-2486.

3.    No response by the California Franchise Tax Board, or any other lawfully delegated representative of the said Agency and/or department has ever been received refuting the claims made in the aforesaid Affidavit.

4.    The Franchise Tax Board was granted 45 days in which to respond to the facts stated in the Affidavit(s) and did not refute them during that time period, thereby “defaulting” on May 26, 2001.

Default having occurred, whereas the Franchise Tax Board employee(s) failed to respond to said Affidavit(s), the following facts are hereby established in accordance with the Uniform Commercial Code, section 1-205:

1.    Divestiture, dispositive facts are established by the California Franchise Tax Board, respecting facts stated in said Affidavit(s), wherein they had the opportunity and “failed to plead,” and thereby have extinguished the right to proceed against Claimant in this matter.

2.    The facts contained within the said Affidavit(s) are considered accurate, as they have not been rebutted, by counter-affidavit, by someone competent to know the law, within the forty five (45) days required.  All matters not denied are affirmed.

3.    Agency/Department failed to issue or maintain documents as required.

4.    Franchise Tax Board, by defaulting to the said Affidavit(s) has been deemed to have waived all rights allegedly claimed against _____________________________ respecting unlawful assessment or collection of alleged taxes or penalties owed for years 1998 through 2000 and agrees to refund all taxes paid.

 

I hereby attest and affirm, under the penalties of perjury, under the laws of California that, to the best of my/our knowledge and belief, the above Affidavit is true, correct, and complete.

 

Signed,

 

<<NAME>>

 

---

[1] Law Dictionary, Barron's, Copyright 1996, ISBN 0-8120-3096-6, pp. 464-465.