Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
April 12, 1983
Mr. Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
Subject: Collection Summons Form 6638 (Rev. 4-89)
Dear Mr. Extort:
During the morning of April 9, 1983 A.D., in the lobby of your
offices at 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200, I witnessed your
personal interactions with two friends of mine: Mr. Mick Mofatt
and Mr. Mike Tarino. Immediately after your private interview
with Mr. Tarino, I also witnessed his audio tape recording of the
interview which you conducted with Mr. Tarino and his witness at
that interview, Major Robert M. Store, Jr., U.S. Army Reserve.
Both Mr. Tarino and Major Store confirmed to me the authenticity
of the tape recording which they played for my benefit
immediately after that interview. On the basis of this direct
personal experience, and on the basis of the facts and law which
are discussed in detail in this letter and all listed
attachments, I am obligated by conscience to inform you that your
words and actions to date indicate to me that you are operating
completely outside of numerous American laws never repealed.
So that you will have absolutely no doubts about my real
motivations for writing this letter to you and for personally
serving all of the attached documents on you, I begin this letter
by citing a California Court case which was decided in the year
of my birth as a Sovereign natural born Free Citizen of one of
the United States of America. The following quotation is taken
from headnote #2 of Steiner v. Darby:
State of California -- Sovereignty and General Powers. --
The people of the state not only have the right to protect
themselves and their chosen form of government from attack
from all sources, but it is their duty to do so, since they
have guaranteed to the people of the United States "a
Republican Form of Government" in this state (U. S. Const.,
art. IV, Section 4)
[Steiner v. Darby, 88 C.A.2d 481; 199 P.2d 429 (1948)]
[emphasis added]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 1 of 116
Your presentment, "Collection Summons Form 6638 (Rev. 4-89)", is
hereby voided and returned to you because I believe that you are
in error for presenting this form to me. I am not a "taxpayer"
as that term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC). The
attached documents contain numerous repetitions of this fact,
which has never been rebutted by any agents of the federal
government, nor by any agents of the Internal Revenue Service.
If I am wrong, then please explain immediately to me so that I
may correct my interpretations of the law, which are evidenced by
all the attached documents. Please also note well that:
Whatever the form in which Government functions, anyone
entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the
risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports
to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his
authority ... and this is so even though as here, the agent
himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his
authority.
[Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill]
[332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947), emphasis added]
You are hereby directed to take specific notice that all agents
of the United States are precluded from making "Political Status
Determinations" in federal income tax matters. Accordingly,
before any agent of the United States can act upon the declared
status of John E. Trumane, Sui Juris,
(1) as that of a "nonresident alien" with respect to the
Corporate "United States",
(2) such agent is directed to take Judicial Notice of the
court case St. Louis Park Medical Center v. Lethert,
286 F. Supp. 271, and
(3) the specific exclusion at 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, and
(4) "U.S. citizenship is a political status," Ex Parte (Ng)
Fung Sing, D.C.Wash. 6 F.2d 670 [emphasis added].
All IRS agents and U.S. Courts are thus barred from making a
"Political Status Determination" with regard to federal income
taxes. Consequently, if IRS agents and federal courts are barred
from declaring John E. Trumane a "taxpayer", then both the IRS
and federal courts lack the requisite jurisdiction, and the
declared and published political status of John E. Trumane must
stand as stated (see all attachments to this letter).
If the IRS and its agents are unable to prove that John E.
Trumane, Sui Juris, actually volunteered to become a "taxpayer"
knowingly and intentionally, with sufficient awareness of the
relevant circumstances and likely consequences, then his sworn
statements that he did not volunteer, and that he was a non-
immigrant "nonresident alien" with respect to the corporate
"United States", also must stand.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 2 of 116
To repeat once again, for the record, during calendar years 1980
and 1981 Anno Domini, John E. Trumane did not receive any gains
or profits which derived from "sources within the United States",
and he was not effectively connected with any "U.S. trade or
business", as those terms are defined by the Internal Revenue
Code.
Specific Demands
I hereby make the following specific demands that you immediately
disclose:
(a) the judicial determination, or law, which declares that
I am a "taxpayer" as defined at IRC 7701(a)(14);
(b) the judicial determination that gave you authority,
against my will and over my objections, to regulate and
control my personal life, liberty and property;
(c) the specific kind of tax you are seeking to impose;
(d) the statute that imposes this obligation and compels me
to perform;
(e) the regulation that puts this code into effect (CFR);
(f) the section or part of the regulation in (e) above;
(g) the form number(s) which you claim I am required to
complete and file;
(h) the authorized OMB control number(s) and expiration
date(s) of such Form(s);
(i) copies of all genuine documents which evidence the
specific contract, agreement, or other obligation which
created a taxable franchise or status in me;
(j) the specific fundamental Rights which you presume that
I would waive by obeying your so-called Collection
Summons, or, as an alternative to (j),
(k) a written guarantee that your so-called Collection
Summons can be obeyed without waiving any Rights,
including but not limited to my Lawful immunity against
self-incrimination (see the 5th Amendment), my Lawful
immunity against involuntary servitude (see the 13th
Amendment), and my Lawful immunity against direct taxes
which are not apportioned (see 1:9:4 and 1:2:3 in the
Constitution for the United States of America as
lawfully amended, the supreme Law of the Land per 6:2).
Your Silence is Fraud
Please take specific notice of the following court authority:
Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a
legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left
unanswered would be intentionally misleading. ... We cannot
condone this shocking conduct by the IRS.
[U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), emphasis added]
[quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 3 of 116
I find it necessary to stress the Prudden and Tweel doctrine, as
quoted immediately above, because you and your agency to date
have failed to provide satisfactory responses to my lawful
demands for the production of documents. Therefore, according to
the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals, you must answer and produce
these documents for me. If, however, you cannot produce them by
5:00 p.m. on May 3, 1983, I shall consider that the so-called
Collection Summons that you issued without my permission is
cancelled, that there will be an estoppel by acquiescence in this
matter, and that no further action is required of me.
"United States" is Bankrupt
It is also essential that you understand your own tenuous legal
position in light of the recent official announcement that the
United States is bankrupt. During a televised interview on the
evening of March 17, 1993, Congressman James A. Traficant from
Ohio officially admitted that the United States is now bankrupt
and that the Congress are now the trustees in receivership. His
statements during this televised interview have been confirmed by
published repetition of this announcement in the House
Congressional Record, dated March 17, 1993, Vol. 139, No. 33.
Acting in their corporate capacities, it is entirely unlawful for
the corporate United States or any of it agencies, assigns or
instrumentalities to compel me to sign a foreign bill of
exchange, or to compel my specific performance to any undisclosed
third-party debt or obligation, when one party to that bill of
exchange is insolvent and, in particular, when an agency of that
party has failed to disclose fully to me its bankrupt condition
and the implications of that bankrupt condition for any future
contracts with it which I may be invited or compelled to enter.
This bankruptcy constitutes a relevant and material fact which
must be fully disclosed by you and has not been fully disclosed
by you. As an agent of the Internal Revenue Service, acting in
its corporate capacity, you have waived any and all sovereign
immunity in your dealings with me. Your failure to disclose the
bankruptcy of the "United States" raises very serious questions
about your true motives in my case and constitutes, at the very
least, proof of your bad faith in the instant matter. To repeat,
your silence can and must be equated fraud (see Prudden and Tweel
authorities supra).
Itemized Rebuttals
After carefully studying the relevant statutes, regulations, and
court decisions, and after carefully studying the Constitution
for the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the
land, I find it necessary to itemize formally the following
reasons why your Form 6638 is entirely invalid and not applicable
to me.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 4 of 116
Denial of Liability
I specifically deny that I owe anything to the Internal Revenue
Service or to the United States or any of its agencies, assigns,
or instrumentalities.
Personal Status
Attached please find true and correct copies of affidavits and
other documents which have already been served on the lists of
recipients shown in these documents. According to the lawful
declarations of status found in these documents, I have already
established my lawful status as a California State Citizen who,
as such, is a non-immigrant "nonresident alien" with respect to
the "United States" as those terms are defined in the IRC and in
26 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).
I am not a "citizen of the United States", nor am I a "resident
of the United States", as those terms are defined in the IRC and
in 26 CFR. In particular, see the pivotal U.S. Supreme Court
case of Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1,
and the resulting Treasury Decision 2313, approved March 30,
1916, which together prove conclusively that Union State Citizens
are properly and legally identified as "nonresident aliens" for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code. Treasury Decision 2313 is
particularly relevant because the Department of the Treasury
determined that New York State Citizen Frank R. Brushaber was a
"nonresident alien" with respect to the "United States", as those
terms are currently defined in the IRC and its regulations.
As a non-immigrant "nonresident alien" with respect to the
"United States" during the calendar years 1980 and 1981, I was
therefore an alien and a stranger with respect to the internal
revenue laws, I was not a resident (i.e. a "nonresident") of the
state of the forum, and I had zero "gross income" as that term is
defined at IRC 872(a).
Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms
As you must already know, a valid Collection Summons must issue
pursuant to IRC 7602, which is implemented by the regulations
promulgated in 27 CFR (see Supplemental CFR Index and Finding
Aids). This implementation is promulgated as 27 CFR Part 70, and
applies to IRC 7601 thru and including 7606. Section 7602 is
also implemented by 27 CFR Parts 170 and 296. These sections of
the CFR deal exclusively with excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco,
and firearms. I have never been implicated or involved in any
way in any of these revenue-taxable activities.
See also Department of Treasury Order No. 120-01, dated Jun 6,
1972, which states that the Director shall perform the function,
exercise the powers, and carry out the duties of the Secretary in
the administration and enforcement of the following provisions of
law:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 5 of 116
(a) Chapters 51, 52, and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
and Sections 7652 and 7653 of such Code insofar as they
relate to the commodities subject to tax under such
chapters;
(b) Chapters 61 to 80, inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code
of 1954, insofar as they relate to activities administered
and enforced with respect to Chapters 51, 52, and 53.
There are no facts in the administrative record which constitute
evidence that I was dealing in alcohol, tobacco, and/or firearms.
You did not and could not issue a valid Collection Summons Form
6638 because this form is listed in IRS Publication 676 as
strictly a third-party summons for activities related to alcohol,
tobacco and firearms. You did not and could not issue a valid
Collection Summons because it must be properly attested according
to 28 U.S.C. 1733(b), Rule 44 of the Federal Rules of Civil
Procedure, because it must be signed under penalties of perjury,
because the underlying foundational basis did not exist to
establish me as being subject to, liable for, or an object within
the scope of your administrative agency (see 1 Am Jur 2d, Abuse
of Process, Section 3).
IRS operations manual MT-19-900 confirms the fact that, if I were
dealing in alcohol, tobacco and/or firearms, I would be required
to make an appearance, but I would be under no obligation to give
any testimony that might incriminate me, contrary to the 5th
Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. (See, e.g., MT 9900-26, 1-
29-75, Sections 242.12(1) and (2).) I am not required to appear.
Last but not least, no Notice 464 has been sent to me commanding
me, as required by Treasury Delegation Order #24 (found in MT-
1229-65, the handbook of delegation orders), to keep books and
records of any kind prior to, nor during, the calendar years in
question (1980 and 1981 Anno Domini).
Delegation of Authority
The information available to me indicates that Treasury
Delegation Orders #4, #150-10, and #150-37 were never published
in the Federal Register as required by federal law. The
Commissioner's Delegation Order #4 is often cited as the
authority to issue a Collection Summons. Until and unless you
can demonstrate conclusively to me that such delegation orders
have been properly published in the Federal Register, I am
entitled to the conclusive presumption that you lack the
prerequisite delegation(s) of authority to issue a Collection
Summons in the first place. If a Collection Summons is served in
the absence of the required delegations of authority, it is
completely lacking in authority and can be ignored with total
impunity.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 6 of 116
Furthermore, former Senator Lloyd Bentsen has recently attempted
to occupy the civil office of Secretary of the Treasury in
blatant violation of Article 1, Section 6, Clause 2 in the
Constitution for the United States of America. Mr. Bentsen is
currently barred by this provision from lawfully occupying that
office until the expiration of his most recent term as U.S.
Senator, which expiration will occur in January of 1995, because
he was a member of the U.S. Senate when that body voted to
increase the emoluments for the civil office which he now claims
to occupy.
As such, Mr. Lloyd Bentsen is not lawfully occupying the office
of Secretary of the Treasury and cannot exercise any of the
authorities which are bestowed upon that office by federal law.
Accordingly, he can neither delegate nor re-delegate any
authorities which he does not possess. Since he lacks any of
these authorities, all his acts are currently being committed
under color of law and are, therefore, null and void ab initio,
including any and all delegations and re-delegations of authority
which he may attempt to enact.
This means that you cannot receive any delegations of authority,
either direct or indirectly, from the Secretary of the Treasury,
because there is no one who is lawfully occupying that civil
office under authority of the United States at the present time.
Accordingly, there is a break in the chain of command above you
and, short of impeachment, there is no lawful way for Congress to
cure this problem by resolution or by statute because:
Congress ... cannot by legislation alter the Constitution,
from which alone it derives its power to legislate, and
within whose limitations alone that power can be lawfully
exercised.
[Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]
CONSPICUOUS NOTICE:
This break in the lawful chain of authority also means that you
have absolutely no authority to execute a substitute return on my
behalf.
Verification of Documents
You are hereby placed on actual notice that the Internal Revenue
Code requires that all statements and other documents required to
be made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or
regulations shall contain, or be verified by, a written
declaration that they were made under the penalties of perjury
(see IRC 6065). Your Collection Summons was invalid because it
failed to exhibit an original signature signed under the
penalties of perjury. Since it lacked the required verification,
it was invalid and can be ignored by me with impunity.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 7 of 116
OMB Requirements Ignored
Since the Collection Summons Form 6638 (Rev. 4-89) requests
information, and since there is no ongoing court action involving
a presumed valid assessment, therefore it does not meet the
"summons exclusion" under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and
must have a properly issued OMB Control Number and Expiration
Date. Lacking a valid OMB control number and expiration date,
your Collection Summons is, by definition, a "bootleg request"
which can be ignored by me with impunity. Why were a valid OMB
control number and expiration date not posted on your Collection
Summons, pursuant to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and as
required by IR Manual 35(44)1.6?
Notice of Personal Liability
Any further attempts by you to assert the validity of your
Collection Summons Form 6638 in the face of contrary evidence
will be noted and can be used as prima facie evidence of your
willingness to violate and otherwise contravene my unalienable
rights and my Constitutionally secured rights as a Sovereign
American. These Rights include, but are not limited to, those
which are enumerated in my Affidavits and other documents,
including this letter (see 9th and 10th Amendments in the U.S.
Constitution).
You are hereby warned that you can and will be held personally
liable for any future attempts to violate my fundamental,
unalienable Rights by acts on your part which attempt to compel
my specific performance to any third-party debt or obligation
created through the unlawful assertion of an invalid Collection
Summons or an improperly executed substitute return. Pursuant to
the Uniform Commercial Code, Section 1-203, you are under a
general obligation to demonstrate good faith in all your dealings
with me. Your failure to obey all applicable rules and
regulations constitutes bad faith, which is synonymous with fraud
(see "bad faith" as defined in Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth
Edition). As an agent of the federal government, you are under a
legal obligation to recognize that: "Constructive fraud as well
as actual fraud may be the basis of cancellation of an
instrument," El Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605
Pacific 2d 240 (1979). Your ignorance of the law is no excuse in
this matter.
Should you continue to circumvent the law as cited above, it will
be necessary for me to sue you for violating IRC 7214 and/or 18
U.S.C. Section 241 and 242. Federal courts have consistently
held that IRS personnel lose their immunity from suits when they
act without authority (see Bothe v. Fluor Engineers, 713 F.2d.
1405 (1983)). If you continue to induce, by fraud, the
production of books and records, I will find it necessary to do
the following:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 8 of 116
(1) report you to the Justice Department, as required by 26
U.S.C. 7214, for perjury and falsifying instruments
under 18 U.S.C. Sections 2, 1001, 1002, and 26 U.S.C.
Sections 7214(1), (2), and (7);
(2) petition a court to impose sanctions against you as
appropriate to reimburse me for any tort or trespass
upon me, for losses resulting from unauthorized
disclosures which damage my reputation, and for mental
anguish caused by the bearing of false witness against
me by you.
General Rebuttal
Mr. Extort, the IRS Printed Product Catalog describes "Collection
Summons -- Income Tax Return", Form 6638, as one that is used to
summon a third party to appear before the IRS and to bring all
specified documents and records necessary for the IRS to prepare
a Federal income tax return for the year(s) no return was made by
the taxpayer named on the summons. I interpret your use of this
Form 6638 to imply a prima facie presumption on your part that I
am a "taxpayer", as that term is defined at IRC 7701(a)(14).
This rebuttable presumption by you is based on facts which are
not in evidence.
This is to put you on formal notice that I have already rebutted
this presumption by means of the attached affidavits and
declarations which contain conclusive facts and which show cause
why you should refrain, with prejudice, from any further demands
upon me to produce any books and records.
Why have you presumed to treat me as a "third party"? Who are
the first and second parties? Who is the real party at interest?
Please be advised that, until you can prove otherwise in a timely
manner, I am not a "taxpayer" nor am I an "individual" who is
required to: (1) file a tax return for the calendar years in
question, (2) produce documents and records, or (3) appear in
response to an IRS Summons.
General Assertion of Rights
For your information, I am not subject to any foreign
jurisdiction by reason of any valid contract or commercial
agreement resulting in my adhesion to the "United States". I
have not provided any waivers of any Rights guaranteed by the
Constitution, through knowingly intelligent acts such as
contracts or commercial agreements with the "United States"
executed "... with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences ...", as ruled by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970). Nor is
it possible that I could have given such waivers by reason of any
Forms 1099 which may have been filed previously by third parties
due to mutual errors resulting in part from a Social Security
application, contract, account and number which were all
subsequently rescinded nunc pro tunc and thereby rendered null
and void ab initio (see all attached documents).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 9 of 116
General Reservation of Rights
I, John E. Trumane, hereby explicitly reserve all natural Rights
and remedies, without prejudicing any, to prove that the Internal
Revenue Service, represented by Mark T. Extort, has no subject
matter jurisdiction and no in personam jurisdiction over me to
request books and records of this Sovereign American inhabitant,
domiciled in the California Republic. Please be advised that my
use of the phrase "All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice" below
my signature on this document means:
(1) that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform
Commercial Code, absent a valid commercial agreement which
is in force and to which I am a party, and cite its
provisions herein only to serve notice upon ALL agencies of
government, whether international, national, state or local,
that they, and not I, are subject to, and bound by, all of
its provisions, whether cited herein or not;
(2) that my explicit reservation of Rights has served notice
upon ALL agencies of government of the "Remedy" which they
must provide for me under Article 1, Section 207 of the
Uniform Commercial Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved
my Common Law Right not to be compelled to perform under any
contract or commercial agreement that I have not entered
into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally;
(3) that my explicit reservation of Rights has served notice
upon ALL agencies of government that they are ALL limited to
proceeding against me only in harmony with the Common Law
and that I do not, and will not accept the liability
associated with the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed
commercial agreements; and
(4) that my valid reservation of Rights has preserved all my
Rights and prevented the loss of any such Rights by
application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.
This phrase must not and will not, under any circumstances, be
used by anyone to render inadmissible this letter, or any of its
attachments as itemized infra.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 10 of 116
Notice of Correspondence Location
Please be advised, once again, that from this point forward I
will require that all correspondence from you must be signed in
pen and ink by you, under penalties of perjury, and routed to the
following mailing location:
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Please be advised that I am not a "resident alien" nor am I a
"resident" of the federal district known as "CA", and that I will
continue to refuse any and all correspondence, mailed from the
IRS or served by the IRS, which is not sent to the proper mailing
location exhibited immediately above.
CONSPICUOUS NOTICE:
In order to be valid, all future service of process must
explicitly acknowledge the fact that I inhabit the California
Republic, not the arbitrary federal district known as "CA".
Failure to recognize this fact necessarily must invalidate any
and all future service of process.
Please also take notice that I formally object to your use of ZIP
codes when routing mail to me, if such ZIP codes could be
construed by courts to mean that I am "subject" in any way to the
"United States". I am consistently informed by employees of the
U.S.P.S. that the only purpose of ZIP codes is to expedite the
sorting and delivery of mail. Instead, I hereby repeat my demand
that you utilize the above mailing location, exactly as shown, in
any and all future correspondence with me.
Demand for Response
You are required to answer this correspondence, pursuant to IR
Manual, Chapter 3, at 3(17)(46)1.5, which states:
(2) All correspondence received ... must be answered and
the answer should indicate: "This is in reply to your
correspondence of such and such date" and explain the action
taken, even if the action taken was exactly what was
requested.
(3) All acknowledgement letters must indicate:
(a) why the response is being delayed,
(b) when final action can be expected, and
(c) employee control number.
[emphasis added]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 11 of 116
And, IR Manual 1218 states:
P-1-180: ... the Service recognizes the people's right to
know about their tax laws and the manner in which they are
being administrated.
Notice of Deadline
I hereby demand that you either present the requisite authority
to support your presentment within twenty (20) calendar days, per
the Uniform Commercial Code under which all liens, levies and tax
matters are controlled:
The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
developed in the Uniform Commercial Code.
[Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
[56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978)]
Or, if the above information is not received by me within twenty
(20) calendar days as stated above, I shall be entitled to the
conclusive presumption that it does not exist, and that the
alleged meeting you have scheduled without my permission is
cancelled. Your silence will be in violation of the "Prudden and
Tweel Doctrines" and will create an estoppel by acquiescence in
all further actions in this matter.
If I do not hear from you within twenty (20) calendar days of the
date on this letter, I will be entitled to the conclusive
presumptions that you lack the requisite authority and that you
are thereby barred, pursuant to the doctrine of estoppel by
acquiescence, from any further challenge to my statements as
contained herein and as contained in all my documents as
previously served on you, your agency and other agencies of the
federal government, including the Congress of the United States.
Attachments
This letter contains a list of attached documents which are
incorporated herein by reference and made an explicit part of
this letter, as if set forth fully herein. The signed and
executed originals of these documents have all been served on the
individuals listed in the respective salutations and service
lists shown in these documents.
Certification
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the
United States of America, without the "United States", that the
foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my current
knowledge, information and belief, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 12 of 116
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sovereign Sui Juris
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
copies: Mr. Mick Mofatt
Mr. Mike Tarino
Major Robert M. Store, Jr.
U.S. Attorney General
U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Assistant IRS Commissioner International
IRS District Director, Ogden
IRS District Director, Sacramento
attachments:
AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICABLE LAW AND DENIAL OF LIABILITY
Letter to IRS Officer Extort, San Rafael, April 6, 1983
FOIA Request to IRS Officer Extort, San Rafael, 3/31/1983
FOIA Request to IRS Officer Agnostic, San Rafael, 3/31/1983
Letter to Disclosure Officer, Sacramento, November 14, 1983
FOIA request to District Director, Sacramento, Oct. 23, 1983
Letter to Secretary of the Treasury , August 1, 1982
Letter to Chief, Collection Branch, Ogden, August 1, 1982
Letter to Chief, Collection Branch, Ogden, June 29, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, October 5, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, October 5, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, July 15, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, July 15, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, May 5, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, May 5, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, March 23, 1982
WITHDRAWAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPLICATION, March 23, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND PUBLIC NOTICE
REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT of John E. Trumane
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT of John E. Trumane
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
Letter to Vital Records, Boston, Mass., April 3, 1982
Letter to Vital Records, Bostom, Mass., March 9, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, March 9, 1982
Letter to Secretary of the Treasury, March 9, 1982
NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT AND REVOCATION
OF POWER ASSEVERATION by John E. Trumane
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 9, 1982
Letter to U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, December 26, 1982
Letters to U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, November 17, 1982
Fourth Petition to Congress, May 22, 1981
Third Petition to Congress, May 3, 1981
Second Petition to Congress, April 15, 1981
First Petition to Congress, December 24, 1980
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 13 of 116
C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E B Y M A I L
It is hereby certified that service of this LETTER and all
ATTACHMENTS has been made on the interested party by mailing one
copy thereof, on this twelfth (12th) day of April, 1983 A.D., in
a sealed Express Mail envelope, with postage prepaid and properly
addressed to him as follows:
Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
Mr. Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
Dated April 12, 1983 Anno Domini
/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E. Trumane, Citizen/Principal, by Special Appearance, in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable Rights.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 14 of 116
Certified Mail Number: __________________________________________
Date: __________________________________________
John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
Marin County
San Rafael, California Republic
united States of America
NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND
PUBLIC NOTICE REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT
OF JOHN E. TRUMANE
CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC )
) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
MARIN COUNTY )
PREAMBLE
I, Citizen John E. Trumane, being a Massachusetts native-
born white adult male living and working in Marin County as a
Citizen of the Republic of California/State since 1979 and I, as
such status, hereby make this Special Appearance, by Affidavit,
in Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, in Common Law,
with Assistance, Special, neither conferring nor consenting to
any foreign jurisdiction, except to the judicial power of
California and/or America, and as such I willfully enforce all
Constitutional limitations respectively on all government
agencies when dealing with them, wherefore the undersigned
Affiant, named herein and above, upon affirmation declares and
evidences the following:
I, John E. Trumane, am of lawful age and competent. I am a
free white natural born Citizen in the California Republic, and
thereby in the united States of America, in fact, by right of
heritage, a Citizen inhabiting the California Republic, protected
via hereditary succession by my predecessors' previous contracts
with government as found in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the
Organic Act of 1849, the original Constitution of California, the
Articles of Confederation of 1777, the Constitution for the
united States of America (1787) including its Preamble, and the
Bill of Rights (1791) including its Preamble; and, as such, I
retain all my unalienable rights granted by God in positive law,
embodied in the Declaration of Independence (1776) and binding
rights upon myself and my parentage, on this day and for all time
now and hereafter; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 15 of 116
I, John E. Trumane, a natural born free white adult male, in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, with Assistance,
Special, receiving mail c/o general delivery, San Rafael,
California Republic, being duly sworn and affixing my signature
to this document, do hereby make the following statement of fact
and affirm: the so-called "Social Security" number xxx-xx-xxxx
is revoked in application, in body and in signature, for I affirm
that this agreement was imposed upon me by usage of threat,
coercion, withholding of material facts, and uninformed consent,
and that I was not at age of majority; therefore, this
aforementioned government action constitutes constructive fraud
and placed me under duress of mind and therefore deprived me of
giving any meaningful consent to the original "Social Security"
application and agreement. This agreement is null and void, nunc
pro tunc, due to the aforementioned fraud; and further,
AFFIDAVIT AMENDMENT PROTECTION CLAUSE
I, the undersigned, in order to protect my unalienable
rights to life, liberty and property, inclusive of my right to
the proper in rem and in personam Citizenship status, have been
forced to amend certain legal documents and statements, due to
the continued revelation and increased discovery of the
continuous acts of fraud upon me by the de facto governments,
both State and Federal, and therefore I declare that I am free to
amend any and all such documents and statements, as a matter of
substantive right, for I cannot be held liable for either the
acts or the omissions by governments which are out of my control,
which acts and omissions constitute fraud in one form or another.
Therefore, I proceed at all times "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF
ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE" to any of my unalienable
rights, inclusive of my personal right to substantive and
procedural due process proceedings under the Judicial Power of
both my State and my Nation. And further,
I, John E. Trumane, state and affirm the following:
1. That material facts were withheld, such as Title 28,
Section 1746, Subsections 1 & 2 (being within or without the
"United States"), which caused me to be unaware that a completed,
signed, and submitted "Form 1040" or "income tax return" and
other IRS and California Revenue Department forms and documents
are voluntarily executed instruments which could be used as prima
facie evidence against me in criminal trials and civil
proceedings to show that I had voluntarily waived my
Constitutionally secured rights and that I had voluntarily
subjected myself to the federal income/excise tax, to the
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to
as the IRC), to the authority of the California Revenue
Department and to the authority of the Internal Revenue Service
(hereinafter referred to as the IRS) by signing and thereby
affirming, under penalty of perjury (within the "United States"),
that I was, in effect, a "person" subject to the tax; that the
above induced and/or forced action, via State and Federal
governments, clearly indicates a violation of the United States
Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 3: "No Bill of
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed." and Clause 4:
"No Capitation, or other direct, Tax shall be laid, unless in
Proportion to the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to
be taken." These above same injunctions are found in the
Northwest Ordinance and in the California Constitution. And
further
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 16 of 116
2. That material facts were withheld, which caused me to
be unaware of the legal effects of signing and filing income tax
returns, as shown by the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for the 9th Circuit in the 1974 ruling in the case of
Morse v. U.S., 494 F.2d 876, 880, wherein the Court explained how
a State Citizen became a "taxpayer" by stating: "Accordingly,
when returns were filed in Mrs. Morse's name declaring income to
her for 1944 and 1945, making her potentially liable for the tax
due on that income, she became a taxpayer within the meaning of
the Internal Revenue Code." [emphasis added] And further,
3. That material facts were withheld, which caused me to
be unaware that the signing and filing of an income tax return
and other IRS forms are acts of voluntary compliance for a free
Sovereign natural born Citizen (see 2:1:5, U.S. Constitution)
inhabiting the united States of America, when executed and
submitted by said Sovereign living and working within the States
of the Union; that I was unaware that, in a legislative court
such as a United States District Court, the completed IRS
documents can become prima facie evidence, sufficient to sustain
a legal conclusion by a judge, that the signer has voluntarily
changed his lawful status/state FROM that of a free Sovereign
natural born Citizen, who is not subject to any federal income
tax and who possesses all of his God-given, Constitutionally
secured rights when dealing with government, TO the legal status
of a "taxpayer" (any individual, trust, estate, partnership,
association, company or corporation subject to federal excise
tax), that is, a "person" who is subject to the federal excise
tax and is, therefore, subject to the authority, jurisdiction and
control of the federal government under Title 26 of the United
States Code, the statutes governing federal taxation and to the
regulations of the IRS, thereby imposing the tax on himself,
waiving his God-given Constitutionally secured rights to property
and labor in respect to the federal income/excise tax statutes
and their administration by the IRS, and establishing himself as
one who has privileges only, but no rights, in dealings with the
IRS, the same as a corporation; that it is my understanding that
the change of status/state resulting from the signed IRS
documents is very similar to the change of status that occurs
when one enlists in the military service and voluntarily takes an
oath that subjects him to the authority, jurisdiction and control
of the federal government under Title 10 of the United States
Code, the statutes governing the armed forces and the regulations
of the military service, thereby waiving his Constitutionally
guaranteed rights in relation to dealings with the military
services; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 17 of 116
4. That I, as a natural born free Sovereign inhabitant in
the united States of America, in the Republic of California, and
as a freeman, am endowed by my Creator with numerous
unalienable/inalienable rights which include but are not limited
to my rights to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness
(property)," which rights are specifically identified in the
Magna Carta (1215) and the Declaration of Independence (1776),
and protected and secured by the Constitution for the united
States of America (1789) and the subsequent Bill of Rights,
Articles in Amendment 1 thru 10 (1791); that my birthright to
the "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" has been
interpreted by both the Framers of the Constitution and by the
U.S. Supreme Court to include my unalienable right to contract,
to acquire, to deal in, to sell, rent, and exchange properties of
various kinds, real and personal, without requesting or
exercising any privilege or franchise from government; that I
have learned that these unalienable property rights also include
my right to contract for the exchange of my labor-property for
other properties and remuneration, such as wages, salaries, and
other earnings; that I have never knowingly, intentionally, or
voluntarily waived any of these unalienable rights, nor can I,
John E. Trumane, be forced to waive any of these rights granted
to me by God the Father, my Creator (see Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S.
742, 748), because I am endowed with these rights by my Creator
and by nobody else and nothing else; and further,
5. That I understand that, if the exercise of my rights
were subjected to taxation, these same rights could be destroyed
by increasing the tax rates to unaffordable levels; therefore,
courts have repeatedly ruled that government has no power
whatsoever to tax or otherwise "lien" against the exercise of any
rights, particularly the rights of Sovereign Citizens, as shown
by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania,
319 U.S. 105 (1943), which stated: "A state may not impose a
charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the Federal
Constitution."; that unalienable rights are rights against which
no lien can be established precisely because they are un-a-lien-
able; that America's founding documents enumerate some of my
unalienable rights, none of which rights I have ever waived
knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally; that I freely choose
to obey all American Law and to pay all Lawful taxes in
jurisdictions which are applicable to me for the common good;
that I stand in Propria Persona with Assistance, Special; that
my status and unalienable rights, as stated hereinafter and in
the foregoing, are not negotiable; and further,
6. That, for years past and at least since the year 1964,
I have been influenced by numerous cases of people going to jail
and being punished, and also by numerous and repeated public
warnings made by the California Revenue Department and by the
IRS, via radio, television, the printed press and other forms of
public communication media, warning of the "deadline" for filing
State and Federal forms, such as a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return"
and/or other IRS forms and documents; this therefore caused me
to file said forms under duress; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 18 of 116
7. That, in addition to the aforesaid warnings, I have
also been influenced by the misleading and deceptive wording of
IRS publications and IRS-generated news articles, by the pressure
of widespread rumors and misinformed public opinion, and by the
advice and assurances of lawyers, C.P.A.'s and income tax
preparers which misled me to believe incorrectly that the 16th
Amendment to the Constitution for the united States of America
abolished the Fifth Amendment of that same Constitution and
authorized Congress to impose a direct tax on me, my property, my
exchanges of property and/or property received as a result of
exercising my Constitutionally secured right to contract; that I
was further misled into believing that I had a legal duty and
obligation to file a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return" and other IRS
and State tax forms, schedules and documents, and that I was
unaware of Title 28, Section 1746 wherein there are two perjury
clauses, one stating that you are within the "United States" and
one stating that you are without the "United States." The
perjury clauses on both State and Federal tax forms stipulate,
under penalty of perjury, that I was stating unknowingly that I
was within the "United States." This is an act of fraud by both
State and Federal taxing agencies. And further,
8. That I have also been further influenced, misled and
alarmed by rumors, by misinformed public opinion and by the
advice and assurances of lawyers, C.P.A.'s and income tax
preparers to the effect that "the IRS and the California Revenue
Department will get you," and that it would be a crime punishable
by fine and/or imprisonment if I did not fill out, sign and file
with the IRS a "Form 1040"; that, in point of fact, the only
person actually named within the IRC as a person required to
collect an income tax, to file an income tax return and to pay an
income tax is a "Withholding Agent"; and that, to the best of my
knowledge, I am not now, nor have I ever been a "Withholding
Agent"; and further,
9. That, in addition to all of the reasons stated in
paragraphs 6, 7 and 8 above, I was influenced by the common and
widespread practice of employers who, either knowingly or
unknowingly, without Power of Attorney, misled me and their
employees to believe that they and I must have a Social Security
Number and that all are subject to the withholding of "income
taxes" from their earnings, either with or without their
permission, based upon the employers' possible mistaken
assumption that they, as employers, are required by law to
withhold "income taxes" from the paychecks of their employees,
which is contrary to the Sections 3402(n), 7343 and 7701(a)(16)
of the IRC, absent a voluntary execution of Form W-4, the
"Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate"; and further,
10. That I have also been mistakenly influenced and
mistakenly impressed by annual public displays and indiscriminate
public offerings by the IRS and the State of large quantities of
the Forms 1040 and 540 in banks, post offices, and through the
U.S. mail, which public displays and offerings also had the
effect of reminding me of, and inducing me to respond mistakenly
by filling out, signing and sending "Form 1040" to the IRS and
"Form 540" to the State Franchise Tax Board (FTB); and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 19 of 116
11. That said "Forms 1040" contained no reference to any
law or laws which would explain just exactly who is and who is
not subject to, or liable for, the income tax, State or Federal,
nor did it contain any notice or warning to anyone that merely
sending said completed "Form 1040" to the IRS would waive my
right to privacy, as secured by the 4th Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and also waive my right to not be a witness against
myself, as secured by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
and that a completed "Form 1040" would, in itself, constitute
legal evidence, admissible in a court of law, that the filer is
subject to and liable for the income/excise tax, even though and
regardless of the fact that I, as a free Sovereign natural born
Citizen (see 2:1:5, U.S. Constitution), am actually and legally
not subject to the statutory jurisdiction of Title 26, nor liable
for any income/excise tax, and regardless of the fact that, to
the best of my knowledge, I have no legal duty or obligation
whatsoever to complete and file any "Form 1040" or State income
tax forms, nor did they evidence Title 28, Section 1746; and
further,
12. That at no time was I ever notified or informed, by the
IRS or by the State of California, nor by any of their agents or
employees, nor by any lawyer, C.P.A., or tax preparer, of the
fact that the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as
correctly interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as
Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Co., 240 U.S. 1 (1916) and
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), identified the
income tax as an indirect excise tax in accordance with Article
1, Section 8, Clause 1 of the United States Constitution; that
the 16th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution, as correctly
interpreted by the U.S. Supreme Court, does not authorize a tax
on individuals but is applicable to nonresident aliens (e.g.
Frank Brushaber) who involve themselves in activities, events or
occupations which come under, or are within, the taxing authority
of the "United States", as explained in Treasury Decision 2313,
March 21, 1916; that the 16th Amendment was never actually
ratified nor could it have been enacted into positive law because
the requisite number of States (i.e., 36) did not meet the lawful
requirements for amending the Constitution; and that a mass of
incontrovertible material evidence available since the year 1985
proves that the act of "declaring" the 16th Amendment "ratified"
was an act of outright fraud by Secretary of State Philander C.
Knox in the year 1913; and further,
13. That at no time was I ever notified or informed by the
California Department of Revenue nor by the IRS, their agents or
employees, nor by any lawyer, C.P.A., or tax preparer, of the
fact that, because of various rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court
in such cases as Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911),
and Pollock v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 492 (1895),
the indirect excise tax on incomes identified by the so-called
16th Amendment is also a tax upon corporate privileges granted by
government, which tax is measured by the amount of corporate
income (see Corporations Tax Act, Statutes at Large, 1909, vol.
XXXVI, section 38, page 112); that this indirect excise tax is
also imposed on the taxable income of foreign corporations, and
on the taxable income of nonresident aliens to the extent this
(latter) income is either effectively connected with the conduct
of a trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of the
"United States", or derived from sources within the corporate
jurisdiction of the "United States" although not effectively
connected with the conduct of trade or business within the
corporate jurisdiction of the "United States", according to
Sections 871 and 872 of the IRC; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 20 of 116
14. That my attention has been called to Report No. 80-19A,
entitled "Some Constitutional Questions Regarding the Federal
Income Tax Laws" published by the American Law Division of the
Congressional Research Service of the Library of Congress,
updated January 17, 1980; that this publication describes the
tax on "income" identified in the so-called 16th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution as an indirect excise tax; that this report
stated: "The Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief
Justice White, first noted that the 16th Amendment did not
authorize any new type of tax, nor did it repeal or revoke the
tax clauses of Article I of the United States Constitution,
quoted above.", and further stated: "Therefore, it can clearly
be determined from the decisions of the United States Supreme
Court that the income tax is an indirect tax, generally in the
nature of an excise tax ....", thus proving in my mind that the
"income tax" is not a tax on me as a free Sovereign natural born
Citizen (see 2:1:5, U.S. Constitution), but is, rather, an
indirect excise tax as described by the U.S. Supreme Court in
Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), wherein the high
Court defined excise taxes as "... taxes laid upon the
manufacture, sale, or consumption of commodities within the
country, upon licenses to pursue certain occupations, and upon
corporate privileges ....", none of which aforesaid
classifications apply to me; and further,
15. That I was unaware of the truth of the rarely
publicized statement by the IRS that the "income" tax system is
based upon "voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment
of tax"; that I was unaware before June of 1980 of a posted
notice in the main lobby of the Federal Building in San
Francisco, California outside the offices of the IRS, which
reads, in pertinent part, "The purpose of the Internal Revenue
Service is to ... encourage and achieve the highest degree of
voluntary compliance in accordance with the tax laws and
regulations."; that I was unaware before June of 1980 that Mr.
Roger M. Olsen, Assistant Attorney General, Tax Division,
Department of Justice, Washington, D.C., made the following
statement to an assemblage of tax lawyers on May 9, 1987: "We
encourage voluntary compliance by scaring the heck out of you.";
that it has never been either my intention nor my desire to
voluntarily self-assess an excise tax upon myself, nor to give up
my right to property, nor to voluntarily subject myself to such
an excise tax; that I had always thought that compliance was
required by law; and further,
16. That I have examined Sections 871 thru 878, 1441, 1442,
1443, 3401(c), 6001, 6011, 6012(a), 6331(a), 7203, 7205 and 7343
of the IRC (Title 26 U.S.C.), and I am entirely convinced and
completely satisfied that I am not now, nor was I ever, any such
"person" or individual referred to by these sections; and
further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 21 of 116
17. That, after careful study of the IRC, and after
consultations on the provisions of that Code with informed
lawyers, tax accountants and tax preparers concerning the
provisions of the IRC, I have never found or been shown any
sections of the IRC that imposed any requirement on me as a free
Sovereign natural born Citizen and unprivileged inhabitant,
living and working within a County within a State of the Union,
to file a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return" or any other State income
tax form, or that imposed a requirement upon me to pay a tax on
"income", or that would classify me as a "person liable", as a
"person made liable", or as a "taxpayer" as the term "taxpayer"
is defined in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(14), which states: "The
term 'taxpayer' means any person subject to any internal revenue
tax."; and further,
18. That, after the study and consultations mentioned in
paragraph 17, the only mention of any possible requirement upon
me, as an individual, to pay a tax on "income", that I could
find, or was shown in 26 U.S.C., was the title of Part I under
Subtitle A, Chapter 1, Subchapter A (which is deceptively titled
"Tax on Individuals") and Section 6012(a), Subtitle F, Chapter
61-A, Part II-B, Subpart B, and the California Tax Statutes;
that a careful study and earnest examination of these parts of
the IRC revealed that the "individuals" to whom these sections
refer are, in fact, either individuals who work within a foreign
country like France and are taxed according to a tax treaty, or
they are nonresident aliens who receive income which is either
effectively connected with the conduct of a trade or business
within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States", or
derived from sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the
"United States", although not effectively connected with the
conduct of trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of
the "United States", according to Sections 871 and 872 of the
IRC; and that, to the best of my knowledge, I have never
conducted any trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction
of the "United States", nor have I ever derived income from
sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States";
and further,
19. That, after the study and consultations mentioned in
paragraph 17 above, my attention was called to the IRC, Chapter
21, entitled "Federal Insurance Contributions Act" (Social
Security), and my attention was also called to Subchapter A of
Chapter 21 entitled "Tax on Employees", which includes Section
3101, wherein the (Social Security) tax is identified as a tax on
"income", not as an "Insurance Contribution", not as a "Tax on
Employees", and not as a tax on wages or earnings; that my
attention was further called to these facts: there is no
provision in the IRC that imposes the tax on employees or
requires them to pay the tax; a voluntarily signed and completed
Form W-4, "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate", allows
an employer to withhold money from a worker's pay for (Social
Security) "income" tax, even though the worker has claimed on
that form to be "exempt" from the graduated "income" tax; and an
employer has no authority to withhold money from a worker's pay
for the (Social Security) "income" tax, for the graduated
"income" tax, nor for any IRS-imposed penalty or assessment if
there is no voluntarily signed "W-4" form in force and a Form
2678, Granting Power of Attorney; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 22 of 116
20. That, after the study and consultations described in
paragraph 17 above, my attention was called to Section 61(a) of
the IRC, which lists items that are sources of "income", and to
the following facts: that IRS Collections Summons Form 6638 (12-
82) confirms that these items are sources, not "income", by
stating that the following items are "sources": "wages,
salaries, tips, fees, commissions, interest, rents, royalties,
alimony, state or local tax refunds, pensions, business income,
gains from dealings in property, and any other compensations for
services (including receipt of property other than money).";
that sources are not "income", but sources become "income" if
they are entered as "income" on a signed "Form 1040", because the
signer affirms, under penalty of perjury (within the "United
States"), that the items entered in the "income" section of the
"Form 1040" are "income" to the signer; that Section 61(b)
clearly indicates which Sections of the IRC identify and list
items that are included in "income" by stating: "For items
specifically included in gross income, see Part II (sec. 71 and
following)"; and further,
21. That my attention was then called to the said Part II
entitled: "Items Specifically Included in Gross Income"; that I
studied sections 71 thru 87 and noticed that wages, salaries,
commissions, tips, interest, dividends, pensions, rents,
royalties, etc., are not listed as being included in "income" in
those Sections of the IRC; and that, in fact, those items are
not mentioned anywhere in any of these sections of the IRC; and
further,
22. That, after further diligent study, it appears entirely
clear to me that the only way that property received by me as a
free Sovereign natural born Citizen (see 2:1:5, U.S.
Constitution), living and working within the States of the Union,
in the form of wages, salaries, commissions, tips, interest,
dividends, rents, royalties and/or pensions could be, or could
have been legally considered to be "income", is if I voluntarily
completed and signed a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return", thereby
affirming, under penalty of perjury (within the "United States"),
that the information on such "Form 1040" was true and correct,
and that any amounts listed on the "Form 1040" in the "income"
block were "income", and thereby acknowledging under oath or
affirmation, that I am, or was, a taxpayer subject to the tax and
have, or had, a duty to file a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return"
and/or other IRS forms, documents and schedules, none of which
instruments I have ever signed with the understanding that I
signed them knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally and by
means of knowingly intelligent acts done with sufficient
awareness of all the relevant circumstances and consequences (see
Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742); and that, when I have
sent in State and Federal tax forms purposely not signed, they
were returned to me with a letter instructing and stipulating
that I must sign the forms under the penalty of perjury, thereby
claiming that I was a "United States citizen" due to the wording
of the perjury clause (Title 28 U.S.C. 1746); and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 23 of 116
23. That, with good faith, with an honest reliance upon the
aforementioned U.S. Supreme Court rulings and with reliance upon
my constitutionally protected Natural Common Law Bill of Rights,
Amendments 1 thru 10 (1791), to lawfully contract, to lawfully
work and to lawfully acquire and possess property, I am convinced
and satisfied that I am not now, nor was I ever subject to,
liable for, or required to pay an income/excise tax; that I am
not now, nor have I ever been a "taxpayer", and there has never
been a Judicial Power proceeding in which it was ruled that I was
a "taxpayer" as that term is defined and used in the IRC; and
that I have never had any legal duties or obligations whatsoever
to file any "Form 1040" or to make any "income tax return", or to
sign or submit any other IRS "individual" forms or documents or
schedules, to pay any "individual" income tax, to keep any
personal financial records, or to supply any personal information
to the IRS; and further,
24. That the U.S. Congress, the International Monetary
Fund, the Federal Reserve Banks and the Internal Revenue Service,
by means of vague, deceptive and misleading words and statements
in the IRC, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in official
statements by IRS Commissioners in the Federal Register, in IRS
publications and in IRS-generated news articles, committed
constructive fraud and misrepresentation by misleading and
deceiving me, as well as the general public, into believing that
I was required to file "Form 1040 Income Tax Returns" and other
IRS forms, documents and schedules and that I was also required
to keep records, to supply information and to pay income taxes;
and further,
25. That, by reason of the aforementioned facts, I do
hereby exercise my rights as a free Sovereign natural born
Citizen (see 2:1:5, U.S. Constitution), upheld by various court
decisions, to revoke, to cancel and to render null and void, Nunc
Pro Tunc, both currently and retroactively to the time of
signing, based upon the constructive fraud and misrepresentation
perpetrated upon me by the Federal government, the U.S. Congress,
the IRS, the "State of California", its Revenue Department and
the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), all IRS and FTB forms, statements,
documents, returns, schedules, contracts, licenses, applications,
articles, certificates and/or commercial agreements ever signed
and/or submitted by me, or on my behalf by third parties
(including but not limited to Forms 1040 and attached schedules,
Forms W-2, Forms W-4, and Forms 1099) on the accounts bearing the
account numbers xxx-xx-xxxx, xx-xxxxxxx, and xx-xxxxxxx, and all
my signatures on any and all of the aforementioned items,
including the original "Social Security" application, which
caused the account bearing the account number xxx-xx-xxxx to be
established; that this notice of revocation is based upon my
rights with respect to constructive fraud and misrepresentation
as established in, but not limited to, the cases of Tyler v.
Secretary of State, 184 F.2d 101 (1962) and also El Paso Natural
Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d 240 (1979), which
stated: "Constructive fraud as well as actual fraud may be the
basis of cancellation of an instrument."; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 24 of 116
26. That I do hereby declare that I am not and never was a
"taxpayer" as that term is defined in the IRC, a "person liable"
for any internal revenue tax, or a "person" subject to the
provisions of the IRC, and I do hereby declare that I am, and
have always been, a "nontaxpayer"; that courts have recognized
and acknowledged that individuals can be nontaxpayers, "... for
with them Congress does not assume to deal and they are neither
the subject nor the object of revenue laws ....", as stated in
the cases of Long v. Rasmussen, 281 F. 236 (1922), Delima v.
Bidwell, 182 U.S. 176, 179, and Gerth v. United States, 132 F.
Supp. 894 (1955); and further,
27. That evidence now available to me proves that the
Internal Revenue Service has to date failed to comply with the
clear and unambiguous requirements imposed on all federal
government agencies by the following Congressional statutes: the
Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Administrative
Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. 551 et seq.), and the Paperwork
Reduction Act (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.); that the IRS failure to
comply with the requirements of these statutes constitutes
further constructive fraud, breach of fiduciary trust between
sovereign Citizens and public servants, and violations of the
solemn oaths of office required of federal government officials,
thereby relieving me of any and all legal duties which could or
might otherwise exist for me to file any returns, schedules, or
other documents with the IRS; and that, after having read these
three statutes and summaries of related case law, I thereby
conclude that there is no reason why the IRS would be exempt from
any of the clear and unambiguous requirements imposed upon
federal government agencies by these three statutes,
notwithstanding any and all allegations to the contrary that
heretofore may have been published by the IRS or the Treasury
Department in the Federal Register without also citing the proper
legal authorities, if any, for such allegations; and further,
28. That recent diligent studies have convinced me of the
above, and that as such I am not "subject to" the territorially
limited "exclusive legislation" nor to the foreign jurisdiction
mandated for the District of Columbia, federal enclaves, federal
territories, and federal possessions by Article 1, Section 8,
Clauses 17 and 18 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S.
Constitution, including its "internal" governmental organizations
therein (hereinafter referred to as the "Federal Legislative
Democracy" and elsewhere referred to in this Affidavit as the
"corporate jurisdiction of the United States"); that I am not
"subject to" this foreign jurisdiction by reason of any valid
contract or any valid commercial agreement resulting in adhesion
thereto across America, nor are millions of other American
Citizens, unless they have provided "waivers of rights guaranteed
by the Constitution" by means of "knowingly intelligent acts,"
such as contracts or commercial agreements with such
government(s) "with sufficient awareness of the relevant
circumstances and likely consequences," as ruled by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970); and
that I myself have given no such "waivers"; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 25 of 116
29. That these same diligent studies have also proved to me
that misrepresentation and a shrewd and criminal constructive
fraud have been perpetrated upon America Citizens by government,
under counterfeit "color of law," through the apparent
entrapments of "certain ACTIVITIES (monopoly occupations) and
PRIVILEGES (other benefits)" allowed by statutory acts or
otherwise; that, by reason of American Law which has never been
repealed, such sources of past and present criminal element in
and behind government should be brought to justice in a
Constitutional Court of Law for aiding and abetting this
misrepresentation and constructive fraud as willing accomplices;
that it is for such a Court, with a 12-member jury of peers, to
decide who is and who is not guilty among personnel of
government, media, schools, lawyers, accountants, clergy and
other purveyors of misinformation and other mind-set propaganda,
in this and related regards; and further,
30. That, due to such shrewd entrapments over the years, I
have unwittingly signed many related documents, contracts, and
commercial agreements, some even under the "perjury" jurat
(within the "United States") as was supposedly required; with
American Law on my side, I hereby revoke and cancel any and all
such signatures and render them null and void, except for those
which I may choose to have considered as being under "TDC"
(Threat, Duress and/or Coercion), past and present; that this is
also my lawful notice that all such signatures of mine in the
future on instruments of government or other entities, including
banks, which might otherwise result in contract adhesion, are to
be considered as being under "TDC", whether appearing therewith
or otherwise; that my Constitutional "Privileges and Immunities"
(per Article 4, Section 2) are apart from those mandated for the
Federal Legislative Democracy by Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17
and 18 and by Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2, and shall not by
Law be violated ever; and that my status, in accord, is stated
for all to see and know in 2:1:5, 1:2:3, 4:2:1 and 3:2:1 of the
Constitution for the united States of America. And further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 26 of 116
31. That, with this accurate knowledge and with "the
supreme Law of the Land" (Article 6, Section 2) again on my side,
I do Lawfully and "squarely challenge" the fraudulent, usurping,
octopus-like authority and jurisdiction cited above in paragraph
28, which authority and jurisdiction do not apply to me (see
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528 at 533); it is, therefore, now
mandatory for any personnel of the Federal Legislative Democracy
or its agents to FIRST PROVE its "jurisdiction," if any, over me
before any further procedures can take place in my regard, per
Title 5 United States Code, "Government Organization and
Employees," Section 556(d), specifically by disclosing in writing
any and all contracts or other commercial agreements whereby the
Federal Legislative Democracy and its agents claim to have
obtained controlling interest in me such that my specific
performance to any third party debt or obligation can be
compelled; OR ELSE any of its personnel and accomplices who
willfully violate this statute can and shall be personally
charged as citizens under Title 18 U.S. Criminal Codes 241, 242,
1001 and/or otherwise; and, in fairness, it must be added that,
to my knowledge, IRS agents have NO written lawful "Delegation of
Authority" within the 50 States and their so-called "Form 1040"
appears to be a bogus and bootleg document on its face; and
further,
32. That, with all of the above in mind, it appears that
this free Sovereign natural born American Citizen is, by Law, as
"foreign" and as much a "Nonresident Alien" with respect to the
Federal Legislative Democracy as he is to France, and thus shall
be free to use related Forms of the Federal Legislative Democracy
if and when they might be needed, required and/or appropriate at
various future times and places yet to be determined (see
paragraphs 12, 13 and 18 above), including but not limited to
Form W-8 ("Certificate of Foreign Status") for banks and/or other
financial institutions, Forms 1040X ("Amended U.S. Individual
Income Tax Return") and 1040NR ("U.S. Nonresident Alien Income
Tax Return") for refunds and for correcting the administrative
record, and IRC Section 3402(n) which authorizes certificates of
exemption from withholding.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 27 of 116
33. That, since my date of birth on April 21, 1947, I have
always been a NONRESIDENT ALIEN with respect to the Federal
Legislative Democracy of the "United States", never having
resided, worked, nor having any income, to the best of my
recollection, from any sources within the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, Northern
Mariana Islands, the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands or
any other territory or possession within the "United States",
which entity obtains its exclusive legislative authority and
jurisdiction from Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17 and 18 and
Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution; that I
have always been a non-taxpayer outside the venue and
jurisdiction of Title 26, United States Code; that, to the best
of my knowledge, I have never had any "U.S. trade or business" as
defined in Title 26 and in 26 C.F.R.; that, to the best of my
knowledge, I have never had any "gross income" from any U.S.
sources, as the term "gross income" is defined in 26 U.S.C.
872(a); and further,
34. That my use of IRS Forms 1040X and 1040NR shall be
presumed to mean that they were filed solely to correct the
administrative record permanently, retroactively to June 21,
1948, so as to claim any lawful refunds that may be due, to rebut
any erroneous presumptions and/or terminate any erroneous
elections of U.S. "residence" which may have been established in
error by the filing of any prior IRS forms, schedules and other
statements by mistakes resulting in part from the demonstrable
vagueness that is evident in Title 26 and its regulations, and by
mistakes resulting also from the constructive fraud and
misrepresentation mentioned throughout this Affidavit; that I
was neither born nor naturalized in the "United States", I have
never been subject to its jurisdiction, and I have never been a
"United States citizen" as defined in 26 C.F.R. 1.1-1 and as
defined in the so-called 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
and further,
35. That I am not now, nor have I ever knowingly,
intentionally and voluntarily, with informed consent, entered
into any personal, internal, public or private agreement,
contract, stipulation, account or similar contrivance with the
"United States", the "Federal Government" or the "District of
Columbia", its territories, its agencies or other property
appurtenant thereto, which would have altered or waived my de
jure, Sui Juris status, or my natural unalienable God-given
natural rights; that any such agreement, contract, expressed or
implied, such as a Social Security number and application, or
Driver's License, or Bank Signature Card, or the use of Federal
Reserve Notes (which are not lawful Specie) etc., have all been
hereby revoked, due to the fraudulent withholding of material
facts, which became a snare and a trap and, as such, are a Bill
of Attainder on this free Sovereign natural born Citizen and
inhabitant in the united States of America, for I cannot become a
nexus by the effect of a fraudulent nexum, because my status and
unalienable natural rights are not negotiable, and the
government, both State and Federal, has not proved that they ever
had jurisdiction to change my status, as required by Title 5
U.S.C. Section 556(d), or as defined and set out as a
Constitutional requirement in Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 533
(see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 748); that any
change of status would lawfully have to take place in a Common
Law (judicial power) court under the due process clause of the
5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 28 of 116
36. That this is to certify that I, John E. Trumane, am a
free Sovereign natural born Citizen and inhabitant in the united
States of America, living and breathing in the California
Republic, living and working in Marin County, living under the
Common Law, having assumed, among the powers of the Earth, the
Separate and Equal Station to which the Laws of Nature and
Nature's God entitles me, in order to secure the Blessings of
Liberty to Myself and my Posterity, and in order to re-acquire
the Birthright that was taken from me by fraud, do hereby
asseverate and revoke all feudatory contracts with the Federal
government and its agencies and with the corporate State of
California and its agencies, for I, John E. Trumane, being of
sound mind and body, do not choose, nor have I ever chosen, to
give up, relinquish or otherwise waive any of my God-given,
natural, Constitutionally secured rights; and further,
37. That my use of the phrase "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF
ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207" above my signature
on this document indicates that I have exercised the "Remedy"
provided for me in the Uniform Commercial Code in Book 1 at
Section 207, whereby I have explicitly reserved my Common Law
right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or
commercial agreement, that I have not entered into knowingly,
voluntarily, and intentionally; that my explicit reservation of
rights has served notice upon ALL administrative agencies of
government, whether international, national, state, or local,
that I do not, and will not accept the liability associated with
the "compelled" benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements;
and that my valid reservation of rights has preserved all my
rights and prevented the loss of any such rights by application
of the concepts of waiver or estoppel. And further,
38. That I reserve my unalienable right to amend this
Affidavit at times and places of my own choosing, according as
new facts and revelations are made available to me at various
future times and places as yet unknown, and as yet to be
determined, given the massive fiscal fraud which has now been
sufficiently revealed to me by means of material and other
reliable evidence which constitutes satisfactory and
incontrovertible proof of the fraud to which I refer in this
paragraph and elsewhere in this Affidavit.
39. That 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 knowledge; and
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 29 of 116
Further This Affiant saith not.
Subscribed and affirmed to Nunc Pro Tunc on the date of my
majority, which day was April 21, 1968.
Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this ________________ day of
___________________________, 1982.
I now affix my own signature to all of the above affirmations
WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE
UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207):
/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E. Trumane, Citizen/Principal, by special Appearance, in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights, per UCC 1-
207 (UCCA 1207).
John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
Acknowledgement
CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC )
) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
MARIN COUNTY )
On this ______ day of ______________________________, 1982,
John E. Trumane did personally appear before me, and is known to
be the one described in, and who executed, the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his
free act and deed as a Citizen/Sovereign in this above named said
State of the Union. Purpose of notary is for identification
only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
_____________________________________
Notary Public
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 30 of 116
Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
June 6, 1983
Martin L. Agnostic
Revenue Agent
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 101 Lucas Valley Road
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Subject: "4549 Tax Assessment Report"
Dear Mr. Agnostic:
I am returning herewith voided copies of your cover letter and
so-called Form 4549-CG (Rev. 10-90), which was signed by you on
March 25, 1983, and taped to my front door on March 31, 1983.
Mr. Agnostic, you have signed your name in pen and ink to a false
statement, because your signature on Page 2 of 2 of that form is
dated "04/13/93".
It is not humanly or physically possible for you to have signed
Form 4549-CG on "04/13/93", and then to have hand-delivered the
same to me on March 31, 1983.
Mr. Agnostic, you are hereby warned that your willingness to sign
your name on a false, fictitious or fraudulent statement is
punishable by a fine up to $10,000 and prison up to 5 years, or
both. Specifically, Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1001 states:
Whoever, in any matter within the jurisdiction of any
department or agency of the United States knowingly and
willfully falsifies, conceals, or covers up by any
trick, scheme, or device a material fact, or makes any
false, fictitious or fraudulent statement or
representations, or makes or uses any false writing or
document knowing the same to contain any false,
fictitious or fraudulent statement or entry, shall be
fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
five years, or both.
[18 U.S.C. 1001, emphasis added]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 31 of 116
I am obligated under law to retain originals of these documents,
because they constitute material evidence of your criminal
behavior. I am also obligated to report evidence of your
criminal behavior to the Department of Justice.
Sir, consider yourself warned.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
Sovereign Sui Juris
copy: Mark T. Extort,
IRS Revenue Officer
enclosures: voided copy of cover letter,
signed and dated March 25, 1983
hand-delivered March 31, 1983
voided copies of Form 4549-CG,
dated "04/13/93"
hand-delivered March 31, 1983
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 32 of 116
Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California
March 9, 1982
Mr. Nicholas Brady, Secretary
Department of the Treasury
15th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia
Dear Mr. Secretary:
Please be so kind as to forward the enclosed Affidavits to all
appropriate governmental office(s), so that proper notice can be
taken of their contents, and suitable action(s) can be taken to
comply with their mandates.
If I do not hear from you, or any of your delegates, within
ninety (90) days of the above date, I will presume that my
statements are correct and that you do not have any rebuttal.
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS
AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)
enclosures: NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND
PUBLIC NOTICE REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT
FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT
copies: Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives
Alan Cranston, United States Senate
John Seymour, United States Senate
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 33 of 116
Certified Mail #P 080 954 019
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California
August 1, 1982
Mr. Nicholas Brady, Secretary
Department of the Treasury
15th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia
Dear Mr. Brady:
This letter is in reference to my letter to you, dated March 9,
1982, transmitting my attached NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND
PUBLIC NOTICE REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT and FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT.
In my transmittal letter, I asked you to forward these affidavits
to appropriate governmental office(s), so that proper notice
could be taken of their contents, and suitable actions could be
taken to comply with their mandates.
I have attached copies of that transmittal letter and of those
affidavits. According to the green Postal Return Receipt card,
your office has already acknowledged receipt of those documents.
To date, I have received no replies or rebuttals from you or from
any of your delegates.
Therefore, I am giving you an additional sixty (60) days to
respond to my letter of transmittal and attached affidavits, and
to notify me of the action(s) which you or your delegates have
taken pursuant to those documents.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
attachments: copies of letter and affidavits
dated March 9, 1982
copies: Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives
Alan Cranston, United States Senate
John Seymour, United States Senate
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 34 of 116
Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested San Rafael, California
Restricted Delivery Requested
August 28, 1982
Theron C. Polivka
Director, Service Center
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, California
Subject: Your Reference #xxxxxxxxxx
NOTICE and DEMAND for PAYMENT
Dear Mr. Polivka:
Your letter dated August 24, 1982, with one (1) attachment and
addressed to "John E. Trumane" is invalid for lacking a verified
signature, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6065; for containing false,
misleading and misrepresentative statements; for exhibiting
presumptions which have already been rebutted under separate
cover; and for exhibiting bad faith as demonstrated by facts set
forth herein. In order to demonstrate my good faith in this
matter, without granting jurisdiction in any way, and with
explicit reservation of ALL of my unalienable rights, I
voluntarily respond to your invalid letter, as follows:
Unverified Signature
Your letter is invalid for lacking a written declaration that it
was signed by you under penalties of perjury. This written
declaration is required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065, as follows:
6065 Verification of Returns.
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return,
declaration, statement, or other document required to be
made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or
regulations shall contain or be verified by a written
statement that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
[26 U.S.C. 6065, emphasis added]
False Statement
Your letter contains the following statement: "The claim is
based on the view that wages and salary do not constitute taxable
income." This statement is false. My claim was filed in good
faith by means of Forms 1040X and 1040NR, dated 3/1/92. Courtesy
copies of the executed forms are attached, for your information.
I draw your specific attention to page 2 of the executed 1040X,
and to page 6 of the executed 1040NR. Please note that nowhere
on these executed forms is there expressed any "view", statement
or implication that wages and salary do not constitute taxable
income. Your willingness to make a statement that is
demonstrably false is proof of your bad faith in this matter.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 35 of 116
Misleading Statement
Your letter also contains the following misleading statement:
"The U.S. Tax Court and other Federal courts have rejected this
argument repeatedly and have held that wages and salary are
taxable income reportable at the full amount received." This
statement is misleading, for the following reasons. Even though
it may be true that the "U.S. Tax Court" and certain "other
Federal courts" have rejected the argument that wages and salary
do not constitute taxable income, the decisions of these courts
directly contradict numerous consistent decisions by the U.S.
Supreme Court on this question. Under the doctrine of stare
decisis, Supreme Court decisions always take precedence over
decisions of all other federal courts. Your ignorance of this
case law is no excuse.
The U.S. Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that "income" means
"profit or gain". For the record, I refer you to Eisner v.
Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 207, Merchant's Loan & Trust v.
Smietanka, 255 U.S. 509, 519, Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527,
535, Southern Pacific v. John Z. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, Doyle
v. Mitchell Brothers, 247 U.S. 179, 185, Stratton's Independence
v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415, Bowers v. Kerbaugh-Empire, 271
U.S. 170, 174, and Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103. In particular
the Smietanka Court, in defining the term "income", ruled that
"... what that meaning is has now become definitely settled by
decisions of this court" [at 519]. It would be difficult and
perhaps impossible in our system of jurisprudence to find a
principle that is better settled by the Supreme Court than the
definition of "income". The Bowers decision itemizes some of the
many relevant Supreme Court authorities.
This matter is extremely important because that same U.S. Supreme
Court has told Congress, in clear and certain terms, that it is
essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income"
and to apply that distinction according to truth and substance,
without regard to form. "Congress cannot by any definition it
may adopt conclude the matter, since it cannot by legislation
alter the Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to
legislate, and within whose limitations alone that power can be
lawfully exercised." Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189, 206.
Read it! For the record, I point out to you that "income" as
such is NOT defined anywhere in Title 26. For this very reason,
I have no alternative but to resort to decisions of the highest
Court in the land to determine its meaning in law. To repeat,
your ignorance of the relevant case law in this matter is no
excuse, Mr. Polivka. Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that
an individual should not be punished or penalized for relying on
its decisions:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 36 of 116
And if the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all,
it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to
rely on our decisions and not be needlessly penalized for
such reliance.
[U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 399-400 (1973)]
Misrepresentations
Your letter exhibits a gross misrepresentation because of your
"Notice 555 (9-80), Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue
Service", which was attached to your letter. Notice 555 (9-80)
is incorrectly titled "Filing Requirements, Pertinent Sections --
Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, United States Code". Mr.
Polivka, Section 6012 of the IRC as quoted therein is not only
incomplete; it also quotes a portion of IRC Section 6012 which
was in force in January of 1983, almost 10 years ago! The
Internal Revenue Code has been amended numerous times since then.
I draw your specific attention to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, in
case you missed it. Sir, your ignorance of these changes in the
law is no excuse. For proof, read and compare the current
Section 6012 of the current IRC, with Section 6012 as quoted in
your "Notice 555", and you will find that your "Notice 555" is
defective on its face.
Your letter contains another misrepresentation that the obsolete
portion of Section 6012 cited in your "Notice 555" is somehow
"pertinent" to my claim. This is a conclusion of law on your
part which is not supported by the facts that are now on the
administrative record in my case (see attached documents).
Notably, your "Notice 555" completely fails to mention the
following pertinent paragraph from Section 6012 of the current
IRC:
... except that subject to such conditions, limitations, and
exceptions and under such regulations as may be prescribed
by the Secretary, nonresident alien individuals subject to
the tax imposed by section 871 and foreign corporations
subject to the tax imposed by section 881 may be exempted
from the requirement of making returns under this section.
[26 U.S.C. 6012, emphasis added]
The facts that are now on the administrative record in my case
conclusively prove that I was a non-immigrant "nonresident alien"
individual with respect to the "United States" during calendar
year 1989, as those terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 CFR,
and that I was not subject to any taxes imposed either by Section
871 of the IRC, or by any other sections of the IRC, during that
particular calendar year. Therefore, I had no filing requirement
as such during that particular calendar year. Specifically, my
"gross income" was zero during that calendar year, as the term
"gross income" is defined at 26 U.S.C. Section 872(a).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 37 of 116
Taxpayer Presumption
Your letter is addressed with the salutation "Dear Taxpayer".
This salutation evidences an erroneous presumption on your part
that I am now a "taxpayer" and/or that I was a "taxpayer" at some
time during calendar year 1989. The attached documents include
affidavits which constitute conclusive proof that I was not a
"taxpayer" at any time during calendar 1989, as that term is
defined in Title 26 (see attached). This presumption on your
part is hereby rebutted. I demand that you correct your records
because they are in error.
Identification Presumption
Your letter evidences an erroneous presumption on your part that
I currently have a valid "taxpayer identification number". This
presumption is hereby rebutted conclusively. The attached
documents include affidavits and other statements of fact which
constitute conclusive proof that the identification number shown
on your letter was rescinded and rendered null and void, ab
initio, for the several reasons stated therein. You will note in
my letter of June 29, 1982 to the Chief, Collection Branch, IRS
in Ogden, Utah, that all future written communication to the IRS
from John E. Trumane will bear unique identification number #965-
76-3264 until such time as the Internal Revenue Service or the
Department of the Treasury issues a different non-immigrant
nonresident alien account identification number. Because I have
not yet been assigned a different account identification number
by the IRS or the Treasury Department, until further notice you
are hereby ordered to utilize number #965-76-3264 in all future
correspondence with me. I demand that you correct your records
because they are in error.
Incorrect Mailing Address
The mailing address on your notice is incorrect. The correct
mailing address for "John E. Trumane" is as follows:
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
I demand that you correct your records because they are in error.
ZIP Code Presumption
Please note also that I object to your use of a ZIP code when
addressing mail to me, if such ZIP code could be construed to
mean that I am "subject" in any way to the "United States". I am
consistently informed by employees of the U.S.P.S. that the only
purpose of ZIP codes is to expedite the sorting and delivery of
mail. For the record, I am not "subject" in any way to the
"United States". I am not a "United States citizen" or a
"citizen of the District of Columbia" who is "resident" in one of
the 50 States of the Union. I am not within the purview of the
municipal laws of the District of Columbia. It is my
understanding that the IRS has adopted ZIP code areas as Internal
Revenue Districts (see Federal Register, Volume 51, Number 53,
Wednesday, March 19, 1986). Specifically, I am not a "resident"
in the "CA" area of the District of Columbia (i.e. a federal
district).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 38 of 116
For the record, and to reiterate numerous statements of my
correct status in the attached documents, I am a natural born
Citizen of the California Republic (see 2:1:5 in the U.S.
Constitution). The U.S. Constitution also refers to People of my
status as "State Citizens". I categorically deny any grant of
jurisdiction, either expressed or implied, to the "United States"
or to any of its agencies or assigns, by reason of the use of ZIP
codes on any of my incoming or outgoing mail. In fact, the use
of ZIP codes in this way by any agencies or assigns of the
"United States" is a sly and subtle trick, constituting fraud and
entrapment on its face and in point of fact. To repeat, I am not
subject to the municipal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia
or any of its "domestic" corporations.
You are hereby given actual notice that my use of ZIP codes, on
incoming and outgoing mail, is under threat, duress, and coercion
because I am forced to pay full postage on all classes of mail
without ZIP codes, because I am told by numerous postal employees
that the absence of ZIP codes will delay the delivery of my mail,
and because the Domestic Mail Manual (DMM) states clearly that
the U.S.P.S. cannot discriminate against the non-use of ZIP
codes.
Bad Faith
For all the reasons stated above and in the attached documents,
you, your agency and its employer continue to exhibit bad faith
with me for the several reasons stated herein. On the contrary,
you, your agency and its employer are under the obligation of
good faith that is imposed at several places in the Uniform
Commercial Code, to wit:
Obligation of Good Faith.
Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
[UCC 1-203]
The law in this area is clear and unambiguous: bad faith is
synonymous with fraud; fraud vitiates even the most solemn
contracts; and "constructive as well as actual fraud may be the
basis of cancellation of an instrument" (see citations in
attached documents).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 39 of 116
Notice of Personal Liability
My refund claim was properly filed, on the correct forms, in good
faith, to the best of my knowledge and with explicit reservation
of all my rights (see 26 CFR Sections 301.6402-3(a)(2), -3(e) and
also 26 U.S.C. Sections 6402 and 6511). Your refusal to allow my
claim constitutes evidence of your willingness to withhold my
property and thereby to violate my fundamental, unalienable
rights. As you must already know, Mr. Polivka, if you act
outside your lawful capacity as an individual or as a government
employee and public servant, you can and will be held personally
liable for each and every violation that you commit.
Be further advised that my possible future remedies will include
the filing of a complaint against you and your superior(s) with a
U.S. Magistrate and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or a
formal complaint with a U.S. Magistrate under Rule 3 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, demanding that a Summons be
issued upon you to show cause why you should not be formally
charged with violations of 26 U.S.C. 7214, among all other laws
which you are obliged to obey but which are not enumerated
herein. I suggest that you consider this section of the Internal
Revenue Code very carefully as it applies to your personal
situation in this matter. Specifically:
* unlawfully withholding my property is a willful
oppression under color of law (7214(a)(1))
* unlawfully withholding my property is a failure to
perform a duty of your office, with intent to defeat
the application of IRC refund provisions (7214(a)(2)).
Other charges against you can and will include fraud, theft and
criminal conspiracy to deprive a Sovereign State Citizen of the
rights guaranteed to him by the U.S. Constitution. Keep in mind,
Mr. Polivka, that you personally enjoy absolutely no personal
immunity for unlawful acts committed outside your capacity as a
public servant:
I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU RETURN THE MONEY THAT BELONGS TO ME AND
I DEMAND YOUR IMMEDIATE COOPERATION AND OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW.
Documents Incorporated by Reference
For your information, attached please find unsigned copies of
documents referenced above. If you require them for any reason,
I recommend that you request the signed and executed originals of
these documents from their recipients, as shown in the attached
letters of transmittal. I hereby incorporate all attached
documents and make them an explicit part of this letter, by
reference.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 40 of 116
Unsworn Declaration
All of the above statements are true and correct, to the best of
my current knowledge, and are affirmed under penalties of
perjury, without the "United States", under the laws of the
United States of America, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
attachments:
Letter to IRS, Ogden, Utah, August 1, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, August 1, 1982
Letter to IRS, Ogden, Utah, June 29, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, June 29, 1982
Letter to Treasury Secretary, August 1, 1982
Letter to Treasury Secretary, March 9, 1982
NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND PUBLIC NOTICE
REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT of John E. Trumane
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 9, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT of John E. Trumane
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 9, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, July 15, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, July 15, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, May 5, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, May 5, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, March 23, 1982
WITHDRAWAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPLICATION, March 23, 1982
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
Letter to Vital Records, Boston, Mass., April 3, 1982
Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, March 9, 1982
NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT AND REVOCATION
OF POWER ASSEVERATION by John E. Trumane
Certificate of Service by Mail, March 9, 1982
Completed Form 1040X sent to IRS Ogden, 3/1/92
Completed Form 1040NR sent to IRS Philadelphia, 3/1/92
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 41 of 116
C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E B Y M A I L
Certified Mail #P 080 954 329
It is hereby certified that service of this LETTER has been
made on interested parties by mailing one copy thereof, on this
twenty-eighth day of August, 1982, in a sealed envelope with
postage prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:
Theron C. Polivka
Director, Service Center
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, California
Dated: August 28, 1982
/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E. Trumane, Sovereign Citizen, by Special Appearance, In My
Own Stead, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 42 of 116
Certified Mail #P 840 292 047
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
October 23, 1982
Mr. Raymond A. Spillman
District Director
Internal Revenue Service
P. O. Box 2900
Sacramento, California
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Mr. Spillman:
This is a request under the Freedom of Information Act, and my
formal written response to your letter to me, dated September 24,
1982, a copy of which is attached for your information.
Without dishonor, I hereby request that you provide me with true
and correct copies of the following:
(1) all documents on which you based your presumptive
determination that I am a "United States citizen" or a
"citizen of the United States";
(2) all documents on which you based your presumptive
determination that I am "subject" to any provisions of
the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and its regulations;
(3) all documents on which you based your presumptive
determination that I am an "individual" as that term is
used in Part I, Section 1 of the IRC;
(4) all documents on which you based your presumptive
determination that I am one of the "individuals"
described in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of your letter;
(5) all documents on which you based your presumptive
determination that I am a "person liable" for any taxes
imposed by the IRC and its regulations;
(6) all documents on which you based your presumptive
determination that I am a "person required" to make and
file a return;
(7) all documents on which you based your presumptive
determination that I am now receiving, or have in the
past received, "taxable income";
(8) all documents on which you based your presumptive
determination that I am a "taxpayer" as that term is
defined in the IRC;
(9) your identification and evidence of your authority to
make and present presumptive determinations about me,
such as those contained in your attached letter dated
"SEP 24 1982", per U.C.C. Section 3-505.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 43 of 116
You are hereby placed on actual notice that I explicitly reserve
my right to rebut any and all factual presumptions which you have
made in support of your letter to me.
In your letter, you stated that you "will not respond to future
letters concerning these same issues". I must remind you that
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a) et seq.) does not
give you any choice in this matter.
The law mandates that you supply me with the information
requested. The documents which I am requesting are not exempted
from disclosure.
I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a maximum of $20.
If you estimate that the fees will exceed this limit, please
inform me first by writing to me, care of the mailing location
described below.
I fully expect and demand a response to this request within the
statutory time limits, as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
Please send your timely, written response, signed in pen and ink,
to the following location:
John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt
Thank you very much for your kind and earnest consideration of
this request, and for your due diligence in providing the
documents itemized above.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
attachment: copy of your letter to me dated "SEP 24 1982"
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 44 of 116
Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
November 14, 1982
Disclosure Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o P. O. Box 2900
Sacramento, California
Subject: NOTICE and DEMAND
Dear Disclosure Officer:
I am writing this NOTICE and DEMAND letter as a courtesy to
inform you that I have refused a letter from your office which
was delivered today c/o general delivery in San Rafael,
California. This letter was refused and rejected, unopened, with
written instructions to RETURN TO SENDER as shown at the upper
left corner of the envelope.
Evidently, you have chosen to ignore the mailing instructions
which are clearly stated on page 2 of my Freedom of Information
Act request, dated October 23, 1982 (a copy of which is attached,
for your information). I have highlighted the mailing location
which you must use in order to correspond with me in writing.
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that your deliberate refusal
to follow these simple and reasonable mailing instructions is
evidence of your bad faith in this matter and constitutes proof
of your failure to comply with all stated requirements of my
lawful FOIA request. You are hereby warned that you are under
the legal obligation of good faith, and that bad faith on your
part is synonymous with fraud.
Please also be advised that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail from you, provided that it conforms to the
requirements as stated in my Freedom of Information Act request.
These requirements must be met by your use of the proper mailing
destination on envelopes and on all correspondence and other
documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.
Finally, I hereby demand written confirmation from you that the
receipt and use of envelopes and their contents with ZIP codes
and/or two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does NOT
grant jurisdiction over State Citizens to the Internal Revenue
Service, the "United States" or any of its agencies, assigns or
instrumentalities.
This written confirmation must be signed in pen and ink by you,
with your true and correct name/identification (not an alias),
under penalties of perjury, as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 45 of 116
I am making this demand because I am a California State Citizen
(see 1:2:3, 4:2:1 and 3:2:1 in the Constitution for the United
States of America). I am not a "citizen of the United States".
You are expected to know the Law in this California Republic
which has been interpreted by the California Supreme Court as
follows:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[emphasis added]
Please be advised that any attempts to trick, entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in my original FOIA, in an unlawful attempt on your
part to grant jurisdiction over me to some arbitrary federal
district, will be further evidence of bad faith for which you may
be sued, in the event that you attempt to do anything on the
basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.
Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
Sovereign California Citizen
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
enclosure: true and correct copy of
Freedom of Information Act
request, dated 10/23/92
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 46 of 116
Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
March 31, 1983
Mr. Martin L. Agnostic
Revenue Agent
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 101 Lucas Valley Road
San Rafael, California Republic
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Mr. Agnostic:
This is my second request under the Freedom of Information Act,
because I have not received a lawful response to my first such
request (a copy of which is attached for your information).
Without dishonor, I hereby request that, for calendar years 1980
and 1981, you provide me with true and correct copies of the
following:
(1) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "United States
citizen" or a "citizen of the United States" as those
terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 C.F.R.;
(2) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "United States
resident" or a "resident of the United States" as those
terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 C.F.R.;
(3) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was "subject" to any
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and its
regulations (26 C.F.R.);
(4) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was an "individual"
as that term is used in Part I, Section 1 of the IRC;
(5) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was an "individual"
who was required to file a "Return Form No. 1040";
(6) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "person liable"
for any taxes imposed by the IRC and its regulations;
(7) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "person
required" to make and file a return;
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 47 of 116
(8) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I received "taxable
income";
(9) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "taxpayer" as
that term is defined in the IRC;
(10) your true identification and evidence of your lawful
delegated authority to make and present presumptive
determinations about me, as required by U.C.C. 3-505
(now 3-501 in some States of the Union);
(11) all genuine public documents which prove that Title 26,
United States Code, has been enacted into positive law,
thus giving legal force and effect to Subtitle F as
required by IRC 7851(a)(6)(A);
(12) all genuine public documents which prove that the
Internal Revenue Service was established by an Act of
Congress as an agency, bureau, department, section or
"Service" under the Department of the Treasury as
described in Title 31, United States Code;
(13) all genuine public documents which explain why the
Internal Revenue Service is not listed as an agency,
bureau, department, section or "Service" under the
Department of the Treasury as described in Title 31,
United States Code;
(14) a certified copy of "Treasury Delegation Order No. 91",
the IRS "Service Agreement" with the Agency for
International Development.
You are hereby placed on actual notice that I have explicitly
reserved my right to rebut any and all presumptions which you
have made for the calendar years in question (1980 and 1981).
The law mandates that you supply me with the information
requested. The documents which I am requesting are not exempted
from disclosure.
I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a maximum of $20.
If you estimate that the fees will exceed this limit, please
inform me first by writing to me, care of the mailing location
described below.
Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public
interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to
public understanding of the operations and activities of the
Internal Revenue Service and is not primarily in my own interest.
I fully expect and demand a response to this request within the
statutory time limits, as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 48 of 116
Please send your timely, written response, signed by you in pen
and ink, under penalty of perjury as required of you by IRC 6065,
to the following mailing location:
John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Please be advised that I am not a "resident" of the federal
district known as "CA" and that I will refuse to accept any and
all correspondence, mailed from the IRS or served by the IRS,
which is not sent to the proper mailing location shown
immediately above. This is to notify you in advance that I will
not accept IRS mail which utilizes ZIP codes.
Thank you very much for your kind and earnest consideration of
this request, and for your due diligence in providing the
documents itemized above.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
attachments: copy of first FOIA request to Raymond A. Spillman,
dated October 23, 1982 (no answer)
copy of NOTICE and DEMAND to Disclosure Officer,
dated November 14, 1982 (no answer)
copy: Mark T. Extort/Revenue Officer
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 49 of 116
Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
March 31, 1983
Mr. Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
Re: Freedom of Information Act Request
Dear Mr. Extort:
This is my second request under the Freedom of Information Act,
because I have not received a lawful response to my first such
request (a copy of which is attached for your information).
Without dishonor, I hereby request that, for calendar years 1980
and 1981, you provide me with true and correct copies of the
following:
(1) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "United States
citizen" or a "citizen of the United States" as those
terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 C.F.R.;
(2) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "United States
resident" or a "resident of the United States" as those
terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 C.F.R.;
(3) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was "subject" to any
provisions of the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and its
regulations (CFR);
(4) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was an "individual"
as that term is used in Part I, Section 1 of the IRC;
(5) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was an "individual"
who was required to file a "Return Form No. 1040";
(6) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "person liable"
for any taxes imposed by the IRC and its regulations;
(7) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "person
required" to make and file a return;
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 50 of 116
(8) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I received "taxable
income";
(9) all genuine documents on which you based any
presumptive determinations that I was a "taxpayer" as
that term is defined in the IRC;
(10) your true identification and evidence of your lawful
delegated authority to make and present presumptive
determinations about me, as required by U.C.C. 3-505
(now 3-501 in some States of the Union);
(11) all genuine public documents which prove that Title 26,
United States Code, has been enacted into positive law,
thus giving legal force and effect to Subtitle F as
required by IRC 7851(a)(6)(A);
(12) all genuine public documents which prove that the
Internal Revenue Service was established by an Act of
Congress as an agency, bureau, department, section or
"Service" under the Department of the Treasury as
described in Title 31, United States Code;
(13) all genuine public documents which explain why the
Internal Revenue Service is not listed as an agency,
bureau, department, section or "Service" under the
Department of the Treasury as described in Title 31,
United States Code;
(14) a certified copy of "Treasury Delegation Order No. 91",
the IRS "Service Agreement" with the Agency for
International Development.
You are hereby placed on actual notice that I have explicitly
reserved my right to rebut any and all presumptions which you
have made for the calendar years in question (1980 and 1981).
The law mandates that you supply me with the information
requested. The documents which I am requesting are not exempted
from disclosure.
I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a maximum of $20.
If you estimate that the fees will exceed this limit, please
inform me first by writing to me, care of the mailing location
described below.
Disclosure of the requested information to me is in the public
interest because it is likely to contribute significantly to
public understanding of the operations and activities of the
Internal Revenue Service and is not primarily in my own interest.
I fully expect and demand a response to this request within the
statutory time limits, as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 51 of 116
Please send your timely, written response, signed by you in pen
and ink, under penalty of perjury as required of you by IRC 6065,
to the following mailing location:
John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Please be advised that I am not a "resident" of the federal
district known as "CA" and that I will refuse to accept any and
all correspondence, mailed from the IRS or served by the IRS,
which is not sent to the proper mailing location shown
immediately above. This is to notify you in advance that I will
not accept IRS mail which utilizes ZIP codes.
Thank you very much for your kind and earnest consideration of
this request, and for your due diligence in providing the
documents itemized above.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
attachments: copy of first FOIA request to Raymond A. Spillman,
dated October 23, 1982 (no answer)
copy of NOTICE and DEMAND to Disclosure Officer,
dated November 14, 1982 (no answer)
copy: Martin L. Agnostic/Revenue Agent
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 52 of 116
Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
April 6, 1983
Mr. Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
Subject: NOTICE and DEMAND
Dear Mr. Extort:
I am writing this NOTICE and DEMAND letter as a courtesy to
inform you that I have refused a letter from you which was
delivered today c/o general delivery, San Rafael, California
Republic. This letter was refused and rejected, unopened, with
written instructions to RETURN TO SENDER as shown on the front
side of envelope.
Evidently, you have deliberately chosen to ignore the mailing
instructions which are clearly stated on page 3 of my Freedom of
Information Act request, dated March 31, 1983 (a copy of which is
attached). I have highlighted the mailing location which you
must use in order to correspond with me in writing.
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that your deliberate refusal
to follow these simple and reasonable mailing instructions is
evidence of your bad faith in this matter and constitutes proof
of your failure to comply with all stated requirements of my
lawful FOIA request. You are hereby warned that you are under
the legal obligation of good faith, and that bad faith on your
part is synonymous with fraud:
1-203 Obligation of Good Faith
Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]
1-201(19) General Definitions
"Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct or
transaction concerned.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 53 of 116
Bad Faith. The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to
mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to
fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not
prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
but by some interested or sinister motive. Term "bad faith"
is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it
implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the
negative idea of negligence in that it contemplates a state
of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill
will. ... An intentional tort which results from breach of
duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
contract.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
[emphasis added]
"The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."
[Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
[56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]
Please also be advised that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail from you, provided that it conforms to the
requirements as stated in my Freedom of Information Act request.
These requirements must be met by your use of the proper mailing
destination on envelopes and on all correspondence and other
documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.
CONSPICUOUS WARNING:
I shall view your continued refusal to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing instructions as evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will be charged with felony mail fraud for transmitting
evidence of your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using
the U.S. Mail for fraudulent purposes, specifically for
attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt.
Finally, I hereby demand written confirmation from you that the
receipt and use of IRS envelopes and their contents with ZIP
codes and/or two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does
NOT grant jurisdiction over State Citizens to the Internal
Revenue Service, to the "United States", or to any of its
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. This written confirmation
must be signed in pen and ink by you, with your true and correct
name/identification (not an alias), under penalties of perjury,
as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065.
I am making this demand because I am a Free Person and a
California State Citizen, i.e. a "Citizen of one of the United
States" (see 1:2:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the Constitution
for the United States of America). By birth and by definition, I
am not a "citizen of the United States". You are expected to
know the Law in this California Republic, which has been
interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 54 of 116
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[emphasis added]
This decision has never been overturned. Since the year 1868,
the federal government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the federal government has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced unlawful menace against the American people by
proceeding on the basis of the erroneous presumption that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by representing the so-called 14th Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court authorities and other competent legal scholars
have now established that it was NOT lawfully ratified. (See
State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975); Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968); 28 Tulane Law Review 22; 11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484; and the Congressional Record, June 13, 1967,
pages 15641-15646.)
Therefore, the definition of "citizen of the United States", as
found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27), is still the
controlling definition of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does not apply to people of the white race. Read it for
yourself!
Furthermore, the failed ratification of the so-called 14th
Amendment means that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because Section 4 of that failed amendment contained the
following clause:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 55 of 116
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
[text of failed 14th Amendment]
The office of U.S. Representative James A. Traficant now confirms
that the "United States" is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that
the Congress are the Receivers in bankruptcy. For proof, see
Congressman Traficant's recent entry in the Congressional Record,
confirming this bankruptcy. Your attempts to enforce collection
of payments to the corporate "United States" must now be
accompanied by a clear and unambiguous disclosure of the
bankruptcy of this "United States".
I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.
Moreover, your failure to recognize the California Republic on
your outgoing mail constitutes prima facie evidence of your
premeditated willingness to abrogate Lawful provisions of the
Constitution for the United States of America, which you are
obligated to obey and which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion;
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]
I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.
Please be advised that any attempts to trick, entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in my original FOIA, in an unlawful attempt on your
part to grant jurisdiction over me to some arbitrary federal
district, will be further evidence of bad faith for which you may
be sued, in the event that you attempt to do anything on the
basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.
Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your full cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
Sovereign California Citizen
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 56 of 116
enclosure: true and correct copy of
Freedom of Information Act
request, dated 03/31/93
copy: Mr. Jerry Garcia,
U.S. Postmaster
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 57 of 116
Certified Mail #P 028 299 916 c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
June 6, 1983
Disclosure Officer (SA-5201)
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o USPS Post Office Box 2900
Sacramento, California Republic
Subject: NOTICE and DEMAND
Dear Disclosure Officer:
I am writing this NOTICE and DEMAND letter as a courtesy to
inform you that I have refused a letter from you which was
delivered recently c/o general delivery, San Rafael, California
Republic. This letter was refused and rejected, unopened, with
written instructions to RETURN TO SENDER as shown on the front
side of envelope (see attached).
Evidently, you have deliberately chosen to ignore the mailing
instructions which are clearly stated on page 3 of my Freedom of
Information Act request, dated October 23, 1982 (a copy of which
is attached). In doing so, you have also failed to answer my
formal NOTICE and DEMAND letter, dated November 14, 1982 (a copy
of which is also attached). I have highlighted the mailing
location which you must use in order to correspond with me in
writing.
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that your deliberate refusal
to follow these simple and reasonable mailing instructions is
evidence of your bad faith in this matter and constitutes proof
of your failure to comply with all stated requirements of my
lawful FOIA request. You are hereby warned that you are under
the legal obligation of good faith, and that bad faith on your
part is synonymous with fraud:
1-203 Obligation of Good Faith
Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]
1-201(19) General Definitions
"Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct or
transaction concerned.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 58 of 116
Bad Faith. The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to
mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to
fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not
prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
but by some interested or sinister motive. Term "bad faith"
is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it
implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the
negative idea of negligence in that it contemplates a state
of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill
will. ... An intentional tort which results from breach of
duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
contract.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
[emphasis added]
"The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."
[Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
[56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]
Please also be advised that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail from you, provided that it conforms to the
requirements as stated in my Freedom of Information Act request.
These requirements must be met by your use of the proper mailing
destination on envelopes and on all correspondence and other
documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.
CONSPICUOUS WARNING:
I shall view your continued refusal to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing instructions as evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will be charged with felony mail fraud for transmitting
evidence of your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using
the U.S. Mail for fraudulent purposes, specifically for
attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt.
Finally, I hereby demand written confirmation from you that the
receipt and use of IRS envelopes and their contents with ZIP
codes and/or two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does
NOT grant jurisdiction over State Citizens to the Internal
Revenue Service, to the "United States", or to any of its
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. This written confirmation
must be signed in pen and ink by you, with your true and correct
name/identification (not an alias), under penalties of perjury,
as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065.
I am making this demand because I am a Free Person and a
California State Citizen, i.e. a "Citizen of one of the United
States" (see 1:2:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the Constitution
for the United States of America). By birth and by definition, I
am not a "citizen of the United States". You are expected to
know the Law in this California Republic, which has been
interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 59 of 116
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[emphasis added]
This decision has never been overturned. Since the year 1868,
the federal government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the federal government has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced unlawful menace against the American people by
proceeding on the basis of the erroneous presumption that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by representing the so-called 14th Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court authorities and other competent legal scholars
have now established that it was NOT lawfully ratified. (See
State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975); Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968); 28 Tulane Law Review 22; 11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484; and the Congressional Record, June 13, 1967,
pages 15641-15646.)
Therefore, the definition of "citizen of the United States", as
found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27), is still the
controlling definition of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does not apply to people of the white race. Read it for
yourself! Please do not make the mistake of concluding that I am
advocating racism or racial superiority here. It is the Congress
who have maintained these racial distinctions right in their own
public laws (e.g. see Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981 thru 1983).
Furthermore, the failed ratification of the so-called 14th
Amendment means that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because Section 4 of that failed amendment contained the
following clause:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 60 of 116
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
[text of failed 14th Amendment]
It is also essential that you understand your own tenuous legal
position in light of the recent official announcement that the
United States is bankrupt. The office of U.S. Representative
James A. Traficant from Ohio now confirms that the "United
States" is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During a televised
interview on the evening of March 17, 1993, Congressman Traficant
officially admitted that the United States is now bankrupt and
that the Congress are now the trustees in receivership. His
statements during this televised interview have been confirmed by
published repetition of this announcement in the House
Congressional Record, dated March 17, 1993, Vol. 139, No. 33.
Your attempts to enforce collection of payments to the corporate
"United States" must now be accompanied by a clear and
unambiguous disclosure of the bankruptcy of this "United States".
I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.
Moreover, your failure to recognize the California Republic on
your outgoing mail constitutes prima facie evidence of your
premeditated willingness to abrogate Lawful provisions of the
Constitution for the United States of America, which you are
obligated to obey and which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion;
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]
I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.
Please be advised that any attempts to trick, entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in my original FOIA, in an unlawful attempt on your
part to grant jurisdiction over me to some arbitrary federal
district, will be further evidence of bad faith for which you may
be sued, in the event that you attempt to do anything on the
basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.
Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration and
your full cooperation in this matter.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 61 of 116
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
Sovereign Sui Juris
attached: photocopy of annotated
envelope, refused and returned
true and correct copy of
Freedom of Information Act
request, dated 10/23/92
true and correct copy of
NOTICE and DEMAND
letter, dated 11/14/92
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 62 of 116
Certified U.S. Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
June 3, 1983
Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Ben Franklin Station
c/o USPS P.O. Box 929
Washington, D.C.
Subject: FOIA Appeal
Dear Commissioner:
This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act.
I requested documents from your agency under the Freedom of
Information Act on October 23, 1982 and March 31, 1983. Copies
of these requests are attached, for your information.
As of the applicable statutory deadlines, your agency had not
responded by mail to the proper mailing locations (i.e. "last
known addresses") shown in my FOIA requests.
On November 14, 1982 and again on April 6, 1983, I placed
appropriate employees of your agency on written notice of their
failure to comply with all stated requirements of my lawful FOIA
requests (see attached).
The documents which I have requested must be disclosed under the
FOIA because I now have good cause to believe that the Internal
Revenue Service is proceeding on the basis of demonstrably
erroneous presumptions about my lawful status for purposes of
U.S. federal income taxation.
Disclosure of the documents which I requested is also in the
public interest because they are likely to contribute
significantly to public understanding of the operations and
activities of the Internal Revenue Service, and is not primarily
for my own interest. I continue to conduct research by
assembling documentation about the Constitution and laws of the
"United States" (all three definitions), and it is important that
the documentation contain information that is as accurate as
possible.
I am also a published author on the subject of federal income
taxation, and I have an ethical obligation to my readers to do
whatever I can to ensure that my research findings are based on
demonstrable facts, and public laws that have been duly enacted.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 63 of 116
For your convenience, I have enclosed a self-addressed stamped
envelope (SASE) for mailing your response back to me. Until
further written notice from me, please update your records and
utilize the mailing location shown on the mailing label of this
SASE. Notice to principals is notice to agents, and notice to
agents is notice to principals.
While I am on the subject of mailing locations, would it be
possible for you to confirm or deny, in writing, that the
Internal Revenue Service refuses to recognize the California
Republic as a matter of official policy? If the Internal Revenue
Service does refuse to recognize the California Republic as a
matter of official policy, would you please provide me with your
justification in Law for this refusal?
You are required by the Freedom of Information Act to make a
decision on this appeal within twenty (20) days (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays).
Thank you very much for your consideration of this appeal.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
all rights reserved
attachments: Letter to Raymond A. Spillman, October 23, 1982
Letter to Disclosure Officer, November 14, 1982
Letter to Martin L. Agnostic, March 31, 1983
Letter to Mark T. Extort, March 31, 1983
Letter to Mark T. Extort, April 6, 1983
Letter to Mark T. Extort, April 12, 1983
copies: Lynn Woolsey, House of Representatives
files
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 64 of 116
Certified Mail #P 028 299 896 c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
June 6, 1983
Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Subject: NOTICE and DEMAND
Dear Disclosure Officer:
I am writing this NOTICE and DEMAND letter as a courtesy to
inform you that I have refused a letter from your office which
was delivered recently c/o general delivery, San Rafael,
California Republic. This letter was refused and rejected,
unopened, with written instructions to RETURN TO SENDER as shown
on the front side of the envelope (see attached).
Evidently, either you and/or other employee(s) of your agency
have deliberately chosen to ignore the mailing instructions which
are clearly stated on page 11 of my Rebuttal letter to you, dated
April 12, 1983 (a copy of which is attached). In so doing,
either you and/or other employee(s) of your agency have also
failed to answer my formal NOTICE and DEMAND letter to you, dated
April 6, 1983 (a copy of which is also attached). In the
attached copy of my Rebuttal letter to you of April 12, 1983, I
have highlighted the mailing location which you must use in order
to correspond with me in writing. From now on, I will also
require that you add a final line which reads "zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)" to your "last known address" for me (see above).
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that the deliberate refusal
by you and/or other employee(s) of your agency to follow these
simple and reasonable mailing instructions is evidence of your
bad faith in this matter and constitutes proof of your failure to
comply with all "last known address" requirements as stated in my
lawful FOIA requests, in my lawful NOTICE and DEMAND, and in all
other lawful documents previously served on your agency. You are
hereby warned that you are under the legal obligation of good
faith, and that bad faith on your part is synonymous with fraud:
1-203 Obligation of Good Faith
Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 65 of 116
1-201(19) General Definitions
"Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct or
transaction concerned.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))
Bad Faith. The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to
mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to
fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not
prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
but by some interested or sinister motive. Term "bad faith"
is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it
implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the
negative idea of negligence in that it contemplates a state
of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill
will. ... An intentional tort which results from breach of
duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
contract.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
[emphasis added]
"The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."
[Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
[56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]
Please also be advised that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail from you, provided that it conforms to the
requirements as stated in my Freedom of Information Act request.
These requirements must be met by your use of the proper mailing
destination on envelopes and on all correspondence and other
documents enclosed within mailing envelopes. To repeat, I now
require you to add "zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)" to your "last
known address" for me, until further notice from me.
CONSPICUOUS WARNING:
I shall view your continued refusal to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing instructions as evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will be charged with felony mail fraud for transmitting
evidence of your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using
the U.S. Mail for fraudulent purposes, specifically for
attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt.
Finally, I hereby demand written confirmation from you that the
receipt and use of IRS envelopes and their contents with ZIP
codes and/or two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does
NOT grant jurisdiction over State Citizens to the Internal
Revenue Service, to the "United States", or to any of its
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 66 of 116
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. This written confirmation
must be signed in pen and ink by you, with your true and correct
name/identification (not an alias), under penalties of perjury,
as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065.
I am making this demand because I am a Free Person and a
California State Citizen, i.e. a "Citizen of one of the United
States" (see 1:2:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the Constitution
for the United States of America). By birth and by definition, I
am not a "citizen of the United States". You are expected to
know the Law in this California Republic, which has been
interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[emphasis added]
This decision has never been overturned. Since the year 1868,
the federal government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the federal government has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced unlawful menace against the American people by
proceeding on the basis of the erroneous presumption that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by representing the so-called 14th Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court authorities and other competent legal scholars
have now established that it was NOT lawfully ratified. (See
State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975); Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968); 28 Tulane Law Review 22; 11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484; and the Congressional Record, June 13, 1967,
pages 15641-15646.)
Therefore, the definition of "citizen of the United States", as
found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27), is still the
controlling definition of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does not apply to people of the white race. Read it for
yourself! Please do not make the mistake of concluding that I am
advocating racism or racial superiority here. It is the Congress
who have maintained these racial distinctions right in their own
public laws (e.g. see Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981 thru 1983).
Furthermore, the failed ratification of the so-called 14th
Amendment means that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because Section 4 of that failed amendment contained the
following clause:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 67 of 116
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
[text of failed 14th Amendment]
It is also essential that you understand your own tenuous legal
position in light of the recent official announcement that the
United States is bankrupt. The office of U.S. Representative
James A. Traficant from Ohio now confirms that the "United
States" is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During a televised
interview on the evening of March 17, 1993, Congressman Traficant
officially admitted that the United States is now bankrupt and
that the Congress are now the trustees in receivership. His
statements during this televised interview have been confirmed by
published repetition of this announcement in the House
Congressional Record, dated March 17, 1993, Vol. 139, No. 33.
Your attempts to enforce collection of payments to the corporate
"United States" must now be accompanied by a clear and
unambiguous disclosure of the bankruptcy of this "United States".
Historical records now indicate that this bankruptcy dates from
the year 1933 (e.g. see House Joint Resolution No. 192), and that
some federal judges have taken a secret oath to conceal it.
I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.
Moreover, your failure to recognize the California Republic on
your outgoing mail constitutes prima facie evidence of your
premeditated willingness to abrogate Lawful provisions of the
Constitution for the United States of America, which you are
obligated to obey and which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion;
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]
I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.
Please be advised that any attempts to trick, entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in my original FOIA, in an unlawful attempt on your
part to grant jurisdiction over me to some arbitrary federal
district, will be further evidence of bad faith for which you may
be sued, in the event that you attempt to do anything on the
basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 68 of 116
Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration and
your full cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
Sovereign Sui Juris
attached: photocopy of annotated
envelope, refused and returned
true and correct copy of Rebuttal
letter to Mark T. Extort
dated 4/12/93
true and correct copy of NOTICE and DEMAND
letter to Mark T. Extort
dated 4/6/93
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 69 of 116
Registered U.S. Mail #R 611 840 636
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
March 19, 1984
NOTICE and DEMAND
Mark T. Extort
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Dear Mr. Extort:
I am writing this NOTICE and DEMAND letter as a courtesy to
inform you that I have refused two letters from your office which
were delivered recently c/o general delivery, San Rafael,
California Republic. One letter was certified mail and the other
was standard first-class mail. These letters were refused and
rejected, unopened, with written instructions to RETURN TO SENDER
as shown on the front side of the envelope (see attached).
Notice of Correspondence Location
Please be advised, once again, that from this point forward I
demand that all correspondence from you must be: (1) signed by
you in pen and ink with your true and correct name and
identification (not an alias), (2) certified by you under penalty
of perjury in conformance with 28 U.S.C. 1746 and IRC 6065 and,
(3) routed to the following mailing location:
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Citizen of California state
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Evidently, either you and/or other employee(s) of your agency
have deliberately refused to follow the mailing instructions
which were clearly stated on page 11 of my Rebuttal letter to
you, dated April 12, 1983 (see attached). In so doing, either
you and/or other employee(s) of your agency have also failed to
answer my formal NOTICE and DEMAND letters to you, dated April 6,
1983 and June 6, 1983 (copies of which are also attached). From
now on, I will also demand that you add a final line which reads
"zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)" to your "last known address" for
me (see above). Please note that the Post Office Box in San
Rafael, California Republic, has been closed.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 70 of 116
As a courtesy to you, in order to save your agency money, and to
demonstrate my own good faith and my sincere desire to read your
written communications, enclosed please find a self-addressed
stamped envelope (SASE) bearing $2.90 in prepaid postage for
Priority U.S. Mail. This envelope bears the correct mailing
location at which I agree to receive (but not necessarily accept)
mail from you and from the other employee(s) of your agency,
until further notice.
Please also take notice that the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court
recently utilized an identical SASE to transmit correspondence to
me without any difficulty whatsoever, and the U.S. Postal Service
delivered this same SASE without any difficulty whatsoever.
Therefore, the mailing location shown on the enclosed SASE is
valid and lawful, constituting further evidence still of your
"Bad Faith" in this matter. As proof of my good faith, I have
attached a photocopy of the delivered envelope from the Clerk of
the U.S. Supreme Court.
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that the consistent and
deliberate refusal by you and/or other employee(s) of your agency
to follow these simple, reasonable and entirely lawful mailing
instructions is evidence of your bad faith in this matter and
constitutes proof of your failure to comply with all "last known
address" requirements as stated in my lawful FOIA requests, in my
lawful NOTICE and DEMAND letters, and in all other lawful
documents previously served on your agency. You are hereby
warned that you are under the legal obligation of good faith, and
that bad faith on your part is synonymous with fraud:
"The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."
[Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
[56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]
1-203 Obligation of Good Faith
Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]
1-201(19) General Definitions
"Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct or
transaction concerned.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))
Bad Faith. The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to
mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to
fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not
prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
but by some interested or sinister motive. Term "bad faith"
is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it
implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the
negative idea of negligence in that it contemplates a state
of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill
will. ... An intentional tort which results from breach of
duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
contract.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
[emphasis added]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 71 of 116
Please also be advised that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail from you, provided that it conforms to the lawful
requirements as stated above. These requirements must be met by
your use of the proper mailing location on envelopes and on all
correspondence and other documents enclosed within mailing
envelopes. To repeat, I now require you to add "zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)" to your "last known address" for me, until further
notice from me.
CONSPICUOUS WARNING:
I shall view your continued refusal to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing instructions as evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes. For this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will be charged with mail fraud (see 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1346)
for sending evidence of your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail,
and for using the U.S. Mail for fraudulent purposes, specifically
for attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal
debt.
Finally, I hereby demand written confirmation from you that the
receipt and use of IRS envelopes and their contents with ZIP
codes and/or two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g. "CA") does
NOT grant jurisdiction over state Citizens to the Internal
Revenue Service, Inc., to the "United States", or to any of the
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities of the "United States",
when jurisdiction would otherwise be lacking. This written
confirmation must be signed in pen and ink by you, with your true
and correct name/identification (not an alias), under penalties
of perjury, as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065 and in
conformance with 28 U.S.C. 1746.
I am making this demand because I am a Free Person and a
California state Citizen, i.e. a "Citizen of one of the States
United" (see 1:2:2, 1:2:3, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the
Constitution for the United States of America). By birth and by
definition, I am not a "citizen of the United States". You are
expected to know the Law in this California Republic, which has
been interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[emphasis added]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 72 of 116
This decision has never been overturned. Since the year 1868,
the federal government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the federal government has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced unlawful menace against the American people by
proceeding on the basis of the erroneous presumption that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by representing the so-called 14th Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court authorities and other competent legal scholars
have now established that it was NOT lawfully ratified. (See
State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975); Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968); 28 Tulane Law Review 22; 11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484; Congressional Record, 6/13/67, pgs. 15641-15646.)
Therefore, the definition of "citizen of the United States", as
found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27), is still the
controlling definition of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does not apply to people of the white race. Read it for
yourself! Please do not make the mistake of concluding that I am
advocating racism or racial superiority here. It is the Congress
who have maintained these racial distinctions right in their own
public laws (e.g. see Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981 thru 1983).
The failed ratification of the so-called 14th Amendment means
that all Americans, including also those who are employed by the
federal and State governments, are entirely free to question the
validity of the public debt of the United States, because Section
4 of that failed amendment contained the following clause:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
[text of failed 14th Amendment]
It is also essential that you understand your own tenuous legal
position in light of the official announcement that the United
States is bankrupt. The office of U.S. Representative James A.
Traficant from Ohio has confirmed that the "United States" is in
Chapter 11 bankruptcy. During a televised interview on the
evening of March 17, 1993, Congressman Traficant officially
admitted that the United States is now bankrupt and that the
Congress are now the trustees in receivership. His statements
during this televised interview have been confirmed by published
repetition of this announcement in the House Congressional
Record, dated March 17, 1993, Vol. 139, No. 33. Your attempts to
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 73 of 116
enforce collection of payments to the corporate "United States"
must now be accompanied by a clear and unambiguous disclosure of
the bankruptcy of this "United States". Historical records now
indicate that this bankruptcy dates from the year 1933 (e.g. see
House Joint Resolution No. 192), and that some federal judges
have taken a secret oath to conceal it.
I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.
Moreover, your failure to recognize the California Republic on
your outgoing mail constitutes prima facie evidence of your
premeditated willingness to abrogate Lawful provisions of the
Constitution for the United States of America, which you are
obligated to obey and which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion;
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]
I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR LAWFUL DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY AND OF YOUR SOLEMN OATH TO
UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA. LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE IRS BINDS YOU
TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.
Please be advised that any attempts to trick, entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified above (see NOTICE OF CORRESPONDENCE LOCATION), in an
unlawful attempt on your part to grant jurisdiction over me to
some arbitrary federal district, will be further evidence of bad
faith for which you may be sued, in the event that you attempt to
do anything on the basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or
correspondence.
Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your full cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Sovereign California Citizen
attached: photocopy of annotated
envelope, refused and returned
photocopy of SASE used by
Clerk of U.S. Supreme Court
true and correct copy of NOTICE and DEMAND
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 74 of 116
letter to Mark T. Extort
dated 6/6/93
true and correct copy of NOTICE and DEMAND
letter to Mark T. Extort
dated 4/6/93
true and correct copy of Rebuttal
letter to Mark T. Extort
dated 4/12/93
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 75 of 116
Registered U.S. Mail #R xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
March 19, 1984
NOTICE and DEMAND
for Exhibition of
DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY
Mark T. Extort
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Dear Mr. Extort:
Demand for Exhibition of Authority
This is my formal demand that you exhibit your lawful delegation
of authority by transmitting two certified copies of same to me
by means of the enclosed mailing envelope, which has the correct
mailing location and $2.90 in prepaid postage for Priority Mail.
Notice of Deadline
I hereby demand that these certified copies be delivered c/o
general delivery, as shown above, no later than 5:00 p.m. on
Monday, March 28, 1984. Certification must comply with 28 U.S.C.
1746 (subsection (1) or (2) as appropriate for the signer).
Notice of Default
If you do not comply with this lawful demand on or before the
stated deadline, then the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence
will prevail and I will be entitled to the conclusive presumption
that you cannot produce proof of any lawful delegation of
authority originating from the Secretary of the United States
Department of the Treasury (see Title 31, United States Code).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Sovereign California Citizen
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 76 of 116
Registered U.S. Mail #R _______________
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
March 31, 1984
NOTICE of DEFAULT
Mark T. Extort
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
Dear Mr. Extort:
Sir, you are in default. On March 19, 1984, I transmitted to
you, via Registered U.S. Mail, my lawful notice and demand that
you exhibit written evidence of your delegation of authority and
your solemn oath to uphold and defend the Constitution for the
United States of America.
Those letters demanded that you exhibit your lawful delegation of
authority and your solemn oath of office by transmitting two
certified copies of same to me by means of the mailing envelope
which was enclosed and which had the correct mailing location and
$2.90 in prepaid postage for Priority Mail. The stated deadline
for exhibition of your lawful delegation of authority and your
solemn oath of office was 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 28, 1984.
Mr. Extort, you have now failed to comply with this lawful notice
and demand. At the precise moment of the deadline, I requested
all three employees of the U.S. Postal Service in San Rafael to
inspect USPS Post Office Box xxxx for any envelopes from the
"Internal Revenue Service". All three employees were witnesses
to the fact that there was none.
Since you did not comply with this lawful demand on or before the
stated deadline, the doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence now
prevails. Therefore, I am entitled to the conclusive presumption
that you cannot exhibit proof of any solemn oath of office nor of
any lawful delegation of authority originating from the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (see Title 31, U.S.C.).
Certified per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) by:
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Sovereign California Citizen
copies: Eugene A. Lynchburg, United States District Judge
United States Postal Service, Terra Linda
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 77 of 116
Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Dated: April 12, 1983
John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
united States of America
ZIP code exempt (DMM 122.32)
AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICABLE LAW
AND DENIAL OF SPECIFIC LIABILITY
FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
DURING CALENDAR YEARS 1980 AND 1981
CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC )
)
MARIN COUNTY )
PREAMBLE
The undersigned Affiant, John E. Trumane, is of majority age
and of sound mind, and has researched the laws as stated herein,
and is competent to testify as to his personal knowledge and
belief of the truth of all the following:
1. That, during calendar years 1980 and 1981, the Affiant
was a Sovereign Citizen of the California Republic, which was one
of the States of the Union of several States; that, as such, his
birth and declared political status placed him in the class of
natural born Persons who were non-immigrant "nonresident aliens"
with respect to the "United States" as those terms were defined
by the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter "IRC"), Sections
865(g)(1)(B), 7701(b)(1)(B), 7701(a)(9) and 7701(a)(10);
2. That Congress, acting in its municipal capacity,
enacted IRC Subchapter N of Chapter 1, in order to separate the
50 Union States from the "United States" (i.e. the District of
Columbia and its Territories, Possessions and Enclaves);
3. That a cursory examination of said Subchapter N reveals
that all "gross income" received from sources within the 50 Union
States was defined as "Income From Sources Without the United
States" (IRC Section 862); that all income derived from sources
within the District of Columbia (i.e. the "United States"), or
"effectively connected with a United States trade or business",
was income from sources within the "United States";
4. That everyone who inhabited the 50 Union States, who
was neither a "citizen of the United States" nor a "resident
alien", was by definition a "nonresident alien", as that term was
defined at IRC 7701(b)(1)(B) (see Treasury Decision 2313);
5. That the Affiant was not a "resident alien", as that
term was defined at IRC 7701(b)(1)(A), because he did not satisfy
the substantial presence test, because he was never lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, and because he did not elect to
be treated as a "resident";
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 78 of 116
6. That all compensation received by the Affiant for his
labor during calendar years 1980 and 1981 was from sources
without, and not effectively connected with, the "United States"
(i.e. the District of Columbia, its Territories, Possessions and
Enclaves);
7. That Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defined the
term "United States" to mean "... the territory over which
sovereignty of the United States extends ....";
8. That Citizens of one of the several Union States were
those who were born or naturalized within the "freely associated
compact states" (i.e. 50 Union States), as that term was utilized
by Congress at 28 U.S.C. Section 297, as lawfully amended;
9. That "United States citizens" were those persons who
were citizens of the District of Columbia and resident any place
in the world, and those people who were residents of any
territory which was subject to the exclusive legislative
jurisdiction of the "United States", which included the
Territories, Possessions, Enclaves and the Federal States (see
Title 4 U.S.C., Chapter 4, Section 110(d), for a definition of
"Federal States");
10. That, for purposes of the IRC, Subtitle A, Congress
created a "word of art" definition for the terms "State" and
"United States"; said terms were defined at IRC Sections
7701(a)(9) and 7701(a)(10) as follows:
(9) United States. -- The term "United States" when used in
a geographical sense includes only the States and the
District of Columbia.
(10) 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.
[emphasis added]
11. That Congress imposed a tax on petroleum at IRC Section
4611, and used a different "word of art" definition for the term
"United States" in that Section; said "word of art" definition
was found at IRC 4612(a)(4)(A), to wit:
(4) United States. --
(A) In General. -- The term "United States" means the 50
States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, any possession of the United States, the
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and the
Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 79 of 116
12. That Congress excluded the 50 Union States from the
definition of "United States", for purposes of Subtitle A, and
defined all "income" from these 50 States as "Income From Sources
Without the United States", at IRC Section 862;
13. That Congress stated at IRC Section 864(c)(4)(A) that:
... no income, gain, or loss from sources without the United
States shall be treated as effectively connected with the
conduct of a trade or business within the United States.
14. That, during calendar years 1980 and 1981, the Affiant
was neither a "citizen of the United States" nor was he a
"resident" or inhabitant of the "United States", i.e. the
District of Columbia, its Territories, Possessions, Enclaves or
Federal States, as those terms were defined supra;
15. That all compensation received by the Affiant during
calendar years 1980 and 1981 consisted of "compensation for labor
or personal services performed without the United States", as
that term was defined by Congress at IRC Section 862(a)(3);
16. That Congress treated "compensation for labor or
personal services performed without the United States" as income
from sources without the United States, at IRC Section 862(a)(3);
17. That IRC Section 864 "Definitions" stated:
(b) Trade or Business within the United States. -- For
purposes of this part, part II, and chapter 3, the term
"trade or business within the United States" includes
the performance of personal services within the United
States at any time within the taxable year ...
(c)(4) Income from sources without the United States. --
(A) ... no income, gain, or loss from sources without the
United States shall be treated as effectively connected
with the conduct of a trade or business within the
United States.
[emphasis added]
18. That the word "certain" was defined as:
Certain. Ascertained; precise; identified; settled; exact;
definitive; clearly known; unambiguous; or, in law, capable
of being identified or made known, without liability to
mistake or ambiguity, from data already given. Free from
doubt.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
[emphasis in original]
19. That page 46 of the 1981 IRS Instructional Booklet for
Form 1040 stated that "certain earned income" was "NONTAXABLE";
20. That, in general, Congress defined the term "earned
income" to mean "wages, salaries, or professional fees ..." at
IRC Section 911(d)(2)(A);
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 80 of 116
21. That Congress excluded from taxation certain "earned
income", as that term was defined at IRC Section 911(d)(2)(A);
22. That there were two (2) classes of citizenship within
the United States of America, as fully explained by the U.S.
Supreme Court in the following cases:
There is in our political system a government of the United
States and a government of each of the several states. Each
of these governments is distinct from the others, and each
has citizens of its own, who owe it allegiance, and whose
rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect.
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875)]
[emphasis added]
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.
[Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections]
[221 A2d. 431, 433 (1966), emphasis added]
23. That the Affiant did not ever knowingly, intentionally,
or voluntarily enter into any agreement, or contract, to be made
partially liable for the federal debt, nor did he ever "elect" to
be treated as a "resident" of the United States under 26 C.F.R.
part 5h and IRC Sections 6013(g) & (h), by the signing Forms 1040
or any other related "United States" forms, and therefore none of
the Affiant's earnings can be taxed under the provisions of "Debt
Management for the Federal Debt" at 7 C.F.R. Part 3;
24. That the Affiant did not voluntarily agree to use the
federal obligations of the "United States", as those terms were
defined at 18 U.S.C. 8; that, if any such unknown contract was
entered into, it was by means of deception and the withholding of
pertinent and material facts, which deception and withholding of
pertinent and material facts constitute constructive fraud by the
federal government and are, therefore, null and void ab initio
under all forms of law.
I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws
of the United States of America, without the "United States",
that the foregoing is true and correct in fact and in substance,
to the best of my current information, knowledge and belief, per
28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Further This Affiant saith not.
Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this twelfth (12th) day of
April, 1983 Anno Domini.
I now affix my own signature to all of the above affirmations:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 81 of 116
/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E. Trumane, Citizen/Principal, by special Appearance, in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special.
John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
ZIP code exempt (DMM 122.32)
California All-Purpose Acknowledgement
CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC )
)
COUNTY OF MARIN )
On April 12, 1983 Anno Domini, before me personally appeared
John E. Trumane, personally known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of satisfactory evidence) to be the Person whose name is
subscribed to the within instrument and acknowledged to me that
he executed the same in His authorized capacity, and that by His
signature on this instrument the Person, or the entity upon
behalf of which the Person acted, executed the instrument.
Purpose of Notary Public is for identification only, and not for
entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
WITNESS my hand and official seal.
/s/ Notaria Publicia Magnificante
_____________________________________
Notary Public
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 82 of 116
RETURN TO SENDER
Refused, due to Sender's "Bad Faith"
(see UCC 1-103:36, 1-203:4-5).
Sender is an unauthorized Trust #62,
domiciled in Puerto Rico under the Federal Alcohol Act,
ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935.
See "The Cooper File" in the Supreme Law Library.
See also Title 31, United States Code, wherein "IRS" is not
listed in organization of U.S. Department of the Treasury, and
31 CFR Secs. 51.2(o) and 52.2(n), which evidence 2 treasuries.
Liability and Jurisdiction are emphatically DENIED.
WARNING: MAIL FRAUD IS A CRIME (see 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1346)
-------------------------cut here--------------------------------
Instructions for Refusing IRS Mail and
Participating in Lawful Protest of Same
1. Do not make the mistake of opening IRS mail.
2. Cut this form on the dotted line.
3. Tape form over front of IRS window envelope.
4. Make 4 photocopies of annotated envelope.
5. Keep 3 photocopies on file.
6. Post with local USPS post office or carrier.
Optional Extra Steps:
7. Write courtesy letter to IRS District Director,
explaining why mail has been refused
(see sample letter below).
8. Attach one of 4 photocopies
(as proof of your good faith).
9. Enclose SASE with proper mailing location, e.g.:
John Q. Doe, Sui Juris
c/o USPS Post Office Box [xxx] -or-
c/o [xxx] [street name]
[city] [zip code]/tdc
[NAME OF STATE]
"tdc" means threat, duress, coercion.
NAME OF STATE is in all CAPS.
10. Photocopy SASE before posting.
11. Send courtesy letter, SASE, and photocopies via
Registered U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 83 of 116
12. Be sure to show your proper mailing location
on the return receipt (see sample letter below).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 84 of 116
Sample Courtesy Letter
Registered U.S. Mail #R ___________
Return Receipt Requested
NOTICE AND DEMAND
[date]
District Director
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
Agents of Foreign Principals
Ogden, Utah Republic
Dear District Director:
NOTICE
I am writing this NOTICE AND DEMAND as a courtesy to inform you
that I have refused an envelope which was delivered recently c/o
general delivery, [city], California Republic, USA. This
envelope was refused with annotated instructions to "Return to
Sender". A copy of this annotated envelope is attached, for your
information.
Please be advised that I inhabit the California Republic and that
I will be happy to receive (but not accept) mail from you,
provided that it exhibits my proper identification and the
correct mailing location as shown immediately below my authorized
signature on this NOTICE AND DEMAND. For your convenience and to
reduce your costs, I have enclosed a SASE, with Priority Mail
postage prepaid, which you may use to return the contents of the
envelope which I have refused.
DEMAND
Finally, I hereby demand written confirmation from you that the
receipt and use of envelopes and their contents with unqualified
ZIP codes and/or two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g. "CA")
does NOT grant jurisdiction over California state Citizens to the
Internal Revenue Service, Inc., to the "United States" or to any
of its agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. In order that I
may rely upon it, this written confirmation must be signed in pen
and ink by you, with your true and correct name and
identification (not an alias) and under penalty of perjury, as
required of you by IRC 6065, and it must be mailed to me within
thirty (30) calendar days of your receipt of this NOTICE AND
DEMAND. Your silence beyond 30 calendar days can be equated with
fraud (see U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977) quoting U.S.
v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)).
Thank you very much for your good faith, your consideration and
your cooperation in this matter.
Sincerely yours,
[authorized signature here]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 85 of 116
John Q. Doe, Sui Juris
Citizen of California state
c/o general delivery
[city] (zip code exempt)
CALIFORNIA STATE
zip code exempt (formerly DMM 122.32)
all rights reserved without prejudice
enclosure: SASE with proper mailing location
and Priority Mail postage prepaid
attachments: photocopy of refused envelope
photocopy of SASE
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 86 of 116
Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested San Rafael, California
June 29, 1982
Chief, Collection Branch
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah
Re: Void "TIN #xxx-xx-xxxx"
Dear Chief:
Your notice dated 06-29-92 and addressed to "John E. Trumane" is
invalid for lacking a signature, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6065,
for exhibiting bad faith, and for exhibiting presumptions which
are hereby rebutted. In order to demonstrate my good faith in
this matter, without granting jurisdiction in any way, and with
explicit reservation of ALL my unalienable rights, I voluntarily
respond to your invalid notice, as follows:
Please take note that, during the calendar year ending 12-31-90,
John E. Trumane was a NONRESIDENT ALIEN with respect to the
"United States" who did not live, work, or have income from any
source within the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, Virgin
Islands, Guam, American Samoa or any other Territory within the
"United States", which entity has its origin and jurisdiction in
Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause
2 of the U.S. Constitution. Therefore, John E. Trumane was a
non-taxpayer outside the venue and jurisdiction of the Private
Law known as 26 U.S.C. and, as such, he was not required to file
any federal tax returns for the calendar year 1980.
Please take note that John E. Trumane was not required to file
Form 1040, Form 1040A, or Form 1040EZ for the calendar year 1980.
He was not required to file Form 1040NR either, because he was
not engaged in the conduct of a "trade or business" within the
"United States", he had no income from sources that were within
the "United States", and he had no income that was effectively
connected with the conduct of a "United States trade or
business", as those terms are defined at 26 U.S.C. 7701(a).
Please take note that "TIN xxx-xx-xxxx" has been revoked in
number, account, and application by means of nunc pro tunc
estoppels at law and affidavits of revocation already served on
the Secretary of the Treasury, Nicholas Brady, and on the
Secretary of State for the California Republic, March Fong Eu.
These documents were served because of the constructive and
actual fraud to which the Internal Revenue Service and the State
of California are parties in bad faith (see e.g. U.C.C. 1-203).
You and your employer(s) are under the obligation of good faith
imposed at several other places in the Uniform Commercial Code.
If you require copies of these documents, you are hereby
recommended to first contact the office of the Secretary of the
Treasury in Washington, District of Columbia and/or the office of
the Secretary of State March Fong Eu in Sacramento, California
Republic, for further assistance.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 87 of 116
Please take note that, as a consequence of the documents
referenced in the previous paragraph, there is no valid "EIN" and
no valid "SSN" anywhere which bears the name "John E. Trumane".
Please correct your records because they are in error.
Please take note that all future written communication to you
from John E. Trumane will bear unique identification number #xxx-
xx-xxxx until such time as the Internal Revenue Service or the
Treasury Department issues a different NONRESIDENT ALIEN account
identification number.
Please take note that the mailing address on your notice is
incorrect. Please correct your records because they are in
error. The correct mailing address for "John E. Trumane" is as
follows:
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
Please take note that John E. Trumane did not "reside" within any
federal district, he did not "have" an address, nor was he a
"fiduciary" of any federal government property at any time during
calendar year 1980.
Please take note that John E. Trumane was not a "United States
citizen" at any time during calendar year 1980.
Please take note that John E. Trumane was not a "United States
resident" at any time during calendar year 1980.
Please take note that John E. Trumane was not a "United States
person" at any time during calendar year 1980.
Please take note that, during calendar year 1980, John E. Trumane
was a "NONRESIDENT ALIEN" with respect to the "United States" as
those terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(B) and 26 U.S.C.
7701(a)(9), respectively.
Please take note that, as such, John E. Trumane did not have any
"gross income" that was derived from sources within the "United
States" during 1980, as the term "gross income" is defined at 26
U.S.C. 872(a).
Please take note that, as such, John E. Trumane did not have any
"gross income" which was effectively connected with the conduct
of a "trade or business" within the "United States" during
calendar year 1980, as the term "gross income" is defined at 26
U.S.C. 872(a); nor was he engaged in the conduct of any "trade
or business" within the "United States" during calendar year
1980.
Please take note that John E. Trumane was exempted from the
requirement of making returns, per 26 U.S.C. 6012(a), last
paragraph, because he was not subject to any tax imposed by 26
U.S.C. 871 or any other sections of 26 U.S.C. or 26 C.F.R.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 88 of 116
Please take note that John E. Trumane was not a "withholding
agent" at any time during calendar year 1980, as that term is
defined at 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(16), and he was not in the only
class of natural "persons" who are specifically named in Title
26, the statute, as being liable for federal income taxes.
Please take note that John E. Trumane was not a "fiduciary" at
any time during calendar year 1980, as the term "fiduciary" is
defined at 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(6).
Please take note that, at no time during calendar year 1980 did
John E. Trumane have a patent, trademark, or copyright issued by
the federal government.
Please take note that, at no time during calendar year 1980 was
John E. Trumane involved in the manufacture, sale, or
transportation of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, per 27 U.S.C.
Please take note that, at no time during calendar year 1980 was
John E. Trumane a "taxpayer", as that term is defined at 26
U.S.C. 7701(a)(14).
Please take note that, as a consequence of the above statements
of conclusive fact, your Individual Master File entries for John
E. Trumane are invalid on their face. If you need additional
clarification of these IMF errors, please request the same by
writing to the above mailing address and signing your request, as
required by 26 U.S.C. 6065.
Therefore, please update your administrative records to reflect
accurately all of the above statements of conclusive fact, which
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and are affirmed
under penalties of perjury, without the "United States", under
the laws of the United States of America, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 89 of 116
C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E B Y M A I L
Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
It is hereby certified that service of this LETTER has been
made on interested parties by mailing one copy thereof, on this
twenty-ninth day of June, 1982, in a sealed envelope with postage
prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:
Chief
Collection Branch
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah
Dated June 29, 1982
/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E. Trumane, Sovereign Citizen, by Special Appearance, in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 90 of 116
Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested San Rafael, California
August 1, 1982
Chief, Collection Branch
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah
Re: Your Notice Dated 07-27-92
Dear Chief:
Your notice dated 07-27-92 and addressed to "John E. Trumane" is
invalid for lacking a signature, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6065,
for exhibiting bad faith, for lacking the required Office of
Management and Budget control number, and for exhibiting
presumptions which have already been rebutted. In order to
demonstrate my good faith in this matter, without granting
jurisdiction in any way, and with explicit reservation of ALL my
unalienable rights, I voluntarily respond to your invalid notice,
as follows:
Your notice is invalid for lacking a written declaration that it
was made under the penalties of perjury. This written
declaration is required by 26 U.S.C. 6065, as follows:
6065 Verification of Returns.
Except as otherwise provided by the Secretary, any return,
declaration, statement, or other document required to be
made under any provision of the internal revenue laws or
regulations shall contain or be verified by a written
statement that it is made under the penalties of perjury.
[26 U.S.C. 6065, emphasis added]
Your notice dated 07-27-92 lacks good faith because it contains
absolutely no reference to my letter to you, dated June 29, 1982,
in which I provided to you "statements" of fact which thoroughly
responded to your previous invalid notice dated 06-29-92. You
and your employer(s) are under the obligation of good faith
imposed at several places in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Your second unverified notice therefore constitutes bad faith
(see e.g. UCC 1-203). I have attached a copy of my letter to
you, dated June 29, 1982, and make it an explicit part of this
letter. Your failure to respond specifically to any of the
statements contained in my letter to you, dated June 29, 1982,
renders all the statements contained therein as "conclusive
facts". Accordingly, you are now barred, by virtue of the
doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence, from any further challenge
to the conclusive facts as stated therein.
Your notice constitutes an "information collection request" which
is required by law to exhibit a valid OMB control number and
expiration date. Your Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), Sections
35(44)0, 35(44)1.6(1), and 35(44)1.6(2), makes it very clear that
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 91 of 116
"correspondence" is required by Public Law 96-511 to exhibit
valid OMB control numbers and expiration dates. Because of the
lack of a valid OMB Control Number and expiration date on your
notice, I am unable to determine under what statutory authority
you are claiming to act. As the United States Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit stated in the case of Smith v. U.S., 249 F.2d
720, any government "information collection request" that does
not exhibit a valid OMB Control Number is a "bootleg form" and
can be ignored with total impunity.
Even though your request is, therefore, a "bootleg form", and
even though I am entitled by law to ignore it with total
impunity, I am giving you the courtesy of this letter to correct
the errors within your correspondence. Therefore, I would
appreciate your forwarding to me an OMB-approved information
request letter advising me of the claimed statutory authority for
your "notice". If you are claiming that I am subject to some
provision of the Internal Revenue Code or its regulations, please
cite in detail that provision or regulation, and how they relate
to me, inclusive of all other provisions and regulations
referenced by them, either directly or indirectly. I am
entitled, I hereby assert my right, and I hereby demand to know
the nature and cause of your notice, which right is guaranteed by
the 6th Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.
Your invalid notice dated 07-27-92 exhibits presumptions which
have already been rebutted in detail in my previous letter to
you, dated June 29, 1982. Specifically, I am not a "taxpayer".
I do not have the "taxpayer identification number" shown on your
notice because it has been rescinded nunc pro tunc by affidavits
served on the Secretary of the Treasury. I am not required to
file a "Form 1040" and, therefore, it is not and can not be
"overdue" as stated on your invalid notice. The Individual
Master File data exhibited on your notice is also invalid because
it is founded on erroneous presumptions which have already been
rebutted in detail in my prior correspondence to you, in prior
affidavits already executed and served on the Secretary of the
Treasury, and also herein.
Therefore, your willingness to persist in making conclusions of
law which are unsupported by the facts on the administrative
record is evidence of your willingness to violate my fundamental,
unalienable rights. As you must already be aware, Chief, if you
act outside your lawful capacity as an individual or as a
government employee and public servant, you can and will be held
personally liable for each and every violation that you commit.
Be further advised that my possible future remedies will include
the filing of a complaint against you and your superior(s) with a
U.S. Magistrate and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or a
formal complaint with a U.S. Magistrate under Rule 3 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, demanding that a Summons be
issued upon you to show cause why you should not be formally
charged with violations of 26 U.S.C. 7214(a)(1), (3), (6), and
(7), for starters. I suggest that you consider these sections of
the Internal Revenue Code very carefully as they apply to your
personal situation in this matter.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 92 of 116
Other charges can include fraud, theft and criminal conspiracy to
deprive a Sovereign State Citizen of rights guaranteed to him by
the U.S. Constitution. Keep in mind that you personally enjoy
absolutely no personal immunity for acts committed outside your
capacity as a public servant. Furthermore, the Anti-Injunction
Act will not protect you as long as there is no valid information
request, no valid notice, or no valid assessment with respect to
me, in addition to your lack of published delegations of
authority.
If I do not hear from you within thirty (30) calendar days of
your receipt of this letter, I will entitled to the conclusive
presumption that your notice was sent in error and that the
matter is closed.
Therefore, to repeat for the second time, please update your
administrative records to reflect accurately all of the above
statements of fact, which are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and are affirmed under penalties of perjury, without
the "United States", under the laws of the United States of
America, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 93 of 116
C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E B Y M A I L
Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
It is hereby certified that service of this LETTER has been
made on interested parties by mailing one copy thereof, on this
first day of August, 1982, in a sealed envelope with postage
prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:
Chief
Collection Branch
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah state
Dated August 1, 1982
/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E. Trumane, Sovereign Citizen, by Special Appearance, in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 94 of 116
Certified U.S. Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
June 4, 1983
District Director
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
Ogden, Utah Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)
Subject: NOTICE and DEMAND
Dear Mr. Director:
I am writing this NOTICE and DEMAND letter as a courtesy to
inform you that I have refused two certified letters from your
agency which were delivered today c/o general delivery, San
Rafael, California Republic. Previously, I have also refused two
other first-class letters from your agency which were delivered
c/o general delivery, San Rafael, California Republic. These
first-class letters were rejected, unopened, with written
instructions to "RETURN TO SENDER" as shown on the front side of
each envelope (see photocopies attached). Mr. Jerry Garcia of
the U.S. Postal Service annotated the certified letters with
"REFUSED" in bold letters and returned them to your agency.
Evidently, you and/or your subordinates have made a deliberate
decision to ignore the mailing instructions which were clearly
stated on page 2 of my letter dated June 29, 1982, Certified Mail
#P xxx xxx xxx, to the Chief of the Ogden IRS Collection Branch
(a copy of which is attached). I have highlighted the mailing
location which you must use in order to correspond with me in
writing.
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that the deliberate refusal
by you and/or your subordinates to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing instructions is evidence of your bad faith in
this matter and constitutes proof of your failure to utilize the
"last known address" to communicate with me in writing. You are
hereby warned that you are under the legal obligation of good
faith, and that bad faith on your part is synonymous with fraud:
1-203 Obligation of Good Faith
Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]
1-201(19) General Definitions
"Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct or
transaction concerned.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 95 of 116
Bad Faith. The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to
mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to
fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not
prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
but by some interested or sinister motive. Term "bad faith"
is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it
implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the
negative idea of negligence in that it contemplates a state
of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill
will. ... An intentional tort which results from breach of
duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
contract.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
[emphasis added]
"The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."
[Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
[56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]
Please also be advised that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail from your agency, provided that it conforms to the
requirements as stated in my previous written communications to
your agency. These requirements must be met by your use of the
proper mailing destination on envelopes and on all correspondence
and other documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.
CONSPICUOUS WARNING:
I shall view your continued refusal to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing instructions as evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will be charged with felony mail fraud for transmitting
evidence of your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using
the U.S. Mail for fraudulent purposes, specifically for
attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt.
Finally, I hereby demand written confirmation from you that the
receipt and use of IRS envelopes and their contents with ZIP
codes and/or two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does
NOT grant jurisdiction over State Citizens to the Internal
Revenue Service, to the "United States", or to any of its
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. This written confirmation
must be signed in pen and ink by you, with your true and correct
name/identification (not an alias), under penalties of perjury,
as required of you by IRC Section 6065.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 96 of 116
I am making this demand because I am a Free Person and a
California State Citizen, i.e. a "Citizen of one of the United
States" (see 1:2:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the Constitution
for the United States of America). By birth and by definition, I
am not a "citizen of the United States". You are expected to
know the supreme Law in this California Republic, which has been
interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[emphasis added]
This decision has never been overturned. Since the year 1868,
the federal government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the federal government has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced unlawful menace against the American people by
proceeding on the basis of the erroneous presumption that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by representing the so-called 14th Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court authorities and other competent legal scholars
have now established that it was NOT lawfully ratified. (See
State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975); Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968); 28 Tulane Law Review 22; 11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484; and the Congressional Record, June 13, 1967,
pages 15641-15646.)
Therefore, the definition of "citizen of the United States" as
found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27) is still the
controlling definition of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does not apply to people of the white race. Read it for
yourself!
Furthermore, the failed ratification of the so-called 14th
Amendment means that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because Section 4 of that failed amendment contained the
following clause:
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
[text of failed 14th Amendment]
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 97 of 116
The office of U.S. Representative James A. Traficant now confirms
that the "United States" is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that
the Congress are the Receivers in bankruptcy. For proof, see
Congressman Traficant's recent entry in the Congressional Record,
confirming this bankruptcy (House Cong. Rec., Vol. 139, No. 33,
March 17, 1993). Your attempts to enforce collection of payments
to the corporate "United States" must now be accompanied by a
clear and unambiguous disclosure of the bankruptcy of this
"United States".
I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.
Moreover, your failure to recognize the California Republic on
your outgoing mail constitutes prima facie evidence of your
premeditated willingness to abrogate Lawful provisions of the
Constitution for the United States of America, which you are
obligated to obey and which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion;
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]
CONSPICUOUS DEMAND:
I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.
Please be advised that any attempts to trick, entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in my prior written notices to your agency, in an
unlawful attempt on your part to grant jurisdiction over me to
some arbitrary federal district, will be further evidence of bad
faith for which you may be sued, in the event that you attempt to
do anything on the basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or
correspondence.
As a courtesy to you, and in order to demonstrate my own good
faith and my sincere desire to read your written communications,
enclosed please find a self-addressed stamped envelope bearing
$2.90 in prepaid postage for Priority U.S. Mail. This envelope
bears the correct mailing location at which I agree to receive
mail from you and from the other employees of your agency, until
further notice.
Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your full cooperation in this matter.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 98 of 116
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Sovereign California Citizen
enclosure: copy of June 29, 1982 letter
copy: Mr. Kenneth Loggins
U.S. Postal Service
San Rafael, California Republic
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 99 of 116
Registered U.S. Mail #R xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
March 6, 1984
NOTICE AND DEMAND
Regional Director
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
Ogden, Utah state
zip code exempt
Dear Mr. Director:
I am writing this NOTICE and DEMAND letter as a courtesy to
inform you that I have refused all certified letters from your
agency which were delivered in recent weeks c/o general delivery,
San Rafael, California Republic. Previously, I have also refused
two other first-class letters from your agency which were
delivered c/o general delivery, San Rafael, California Republic.
These first-class letters were rejected, unopened, with written
instructions to "RETURN TO SENDER" as shown on the front side of
each envelope (see photocopies attached).
Evidently, you and/or your subordinates have made a deliberate
decision to ignore the mailing instructions which were clearly
stated on page 2 of my letter dated June 29, 1982, Certified U.S.
Mail #P xxx xxx xxx, to the Chief of the Ogden IRS Collection
Branch (a copy of which is attached). My proper mailing location
was also shown in a conspicuous location at the top of the first
page of my letter dated June 4, 1983, Certified U.S. Mail #P 028
299 918, to the District Director of the Ogden IRS (a copy of
which is also attached). I have highlighted my proper mailing
location on both of these attached letters.
I am forced to conclude, therefore, that the deliberate refusal
by you and/or your subordinates to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing instructions is evidence of your bad faith in
this matter and constitutes proof of your failure to utilize the
"last known address" to communicate with me in writing. You are
hereby warned that you are under the legal obligation of good
faith, and that bad faith on your part is synonymous with fraud:
1-203 Obligation of Good Faith
Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]
1-201(19) General Definitions
"Good faith" means honesty in fact in the conduct or
transaction concerned.
[Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 100 of 116
Bad Faith. The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
or involving actual or constructive fraud, or a design to
mislead or deceive another, or a neglect or refusal to
fulfill some duty or some contractual obligation, not
prompted by an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
but by some interested or sinister motive. Term "bad faith"
is not simply bad judgment or negligence, but rather it
implies the conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
purpose or moral obliquity; it is different from the
negative idea of negligence in that it contemplates a state
of mind affirmatively operating with furtive design or ill
will. ... An intentional tort which results from breach of
duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
contract.
[Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
[emphasis added]
"The Federal Tax Lien Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."
[Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
[56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]
Please also be advised that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail from your agency, provided that it conforms to the
requirements as stated in my previous written communications to
your agency. These requirements must be met by your use of the
proper mailing destination on envelopes and on all correspondence
and other documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.
CONSPICUOUS WARNING:
I shall view your continued refusal to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing instructions as evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will be charged with mail fraud for transmitting evidence of
your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using the U.S.
Mail for fraudulent purposes, specifically for attempting to
enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt (see 18 U.S.C.S.,
Sections 1341, 1346).
Finally, I hereby demand written confirmation from you that the
receipt and use of IRS, Inc. envelopes and their contents with
ZIP codes and/or two-letter federal abbreviations (e.g., "CA")
does NOT grant jurisdiction over California state Citizens to the
Internal Revenue Service, Inc., to the "United States", or to any
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities of the "United States".
This written confirmation must be signed in pen and ink by you,
with your true and correct name/identification (not an alias),
under penalties of perjury, as required of you by IRC 6065.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 101 of 116
I am making this demand because I am a "free Person" (see 1:2:3)
and a California state Citizen, i.e. a "Citizen of one of the
States united" (see 1:2:2, 1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the
Constitution for the United States of America). By birth and by
definition, I am not a "citizen of the United States". You are
expected to know the supreme Law in this California Republic,
which has been interpreted by the California Supreme Court as
follows:
A citizen of any one of the States of the union, is held to
be, and called a citizen of the United States, although
technically and abstractly there is no such thing. To
conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
of some one of the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
and inconsistent with the proper construction and common
understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
which must be deduced from its various other provisions.
The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
of naturalization, was to make citizens of the respective
States.
[Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
[emphasis added]
This decision has never been overturned. Since the year 1868,
the federal government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the federal government has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence and
unlawful dominion, and evidenced menace against the American
people by proceeding on the basis of the erroneous presumption
that all Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States", and by representing the so-called 14th Amendment as a
lawfully ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when
contrary proof, published court authorities and other competent
legal scholars have now established that it was NOT lawfully
ratified. (See State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975); Dyett v.
Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968); 28 Tulane Law Review 22; 11 South
Carolina Law Quarterly 484; and the Congressional Record, June
13, 1967, pages 15641-15646.)
Therefore, the definition of "citizen of the United States" as
found in the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27) is still the
controlling definition of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does not apply to people of the white race. Read it for
yourself! Please do not make the mistake of concluding that I am
advocating racism or racial superiority here. It is the Congress
who have maintained these racial distinctions right in their own
public laws (e.g. see Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981 thru 1983).
Furthermore, the failed ratification of the so-called 14th
Amendment means that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because Section 4 of that failed amendment contained the
following clause:
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 102 of 116
Section 4. The validity of the public debt of the United
States, authorized by law, including debts incurred for
payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.
[text of failed 14th amendment]
The office of U.S. Representative James A. Traficant has
confirmed that the "United States" is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
and that the Congress are now the Receivers in bankruptcy. For
conclusive proof, see Congressman Traficant's recent entry in the
Congressional Record, confirming this bankruptcy (House Cong.
Rec., Vol. 139, No. 33, March 17, 1993). Your attempts to
enforce collection of payments to the corporate "United States"
must now be accompanied by a clear and unambiguous disclosure of
the bankruptcy of this "United States".
I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.
Moreover, your failure to recognize the California Republic on
your outgoing mail constitutes prima facie evidence of your
premeditated willingness to abrogate Lawful provisions of the
Constitution for the United States of America, which you are
obligated to obey and which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:
Section 4. The United States shall guarantee to every State
in this Union a Republican Form of Government, and shall
protect each of them against Invasion;
[Constitution for the United States of America]
[Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]
CONSPICUOUS DEMAND:
I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN OATH TO UPHOLD AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS, INC. BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.
Please be advised that any attempts to trick, entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in my prior written notices to your agency, in an
unlawful attempt on your part to grant jurisdiction over me to
some arbitrary federal district or region, will be further
evidence of your bad faith for which you may be sued, in the
event that you attempt to do anything on the basis of such
incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.
As a courtesy to you, and in order to demonstrate my own good
faith and my sincere desire to read your written communications,
enclosed please find a self-addressed stamped envelope (SASE)
bearing $2.90 in prepaid postage for Priority U.S. Mail. This
envelope bears the correct mailing location at which I agree to
receive (but not necessarily accept) mail from you and from the
other employees of your agency, until further notice.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 103 of 116
Please also take notice that the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court
recently utilized an identical SASE to transmit correspondence to
me without any difficulty whatsoever, and the U.S. Postal Service
delivered this same SASE without any difficulty whatsoever.
Therefore, the mailing location shown on the enclosed SASE is
valid and lawful, constituting further evidence still of your
"Bad Faith" in this matter. As proof of my good faith, I have
attached a photocopy of the delivered envelope from the Clerk of
the U.S. Supreme Court.
Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your full cooperation in this matter.
NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.
NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Citizen of California state
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice
enclosures: copy of June 29, 1982 letter
copy of June 4, 1983 letter
copies of refused first-class letters
copy of enclosed SASE
copy of delivered envelope from
the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 104 of 116
RETURN TO SENDER
Refused, due to Sender's "Bad Faith"
(see UCC 1-103:36, 1-203:4-5).
Sender is an unauthorized Trust #62,
domiciled in Puerto Rico under the Federal Alcohol Act,
ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935.
See "The Cooper File" in the Supreme Law Library.
See also Title 31, United States Code, wherein "IRS" is not
listed in organization of U.S. Department of the Treasury, and
31 CFR Secs. 51.2(o) and 52.2(n), which evidence 2 treasuries.
Liability and Jurisdiction are emphatically DENIED.
WARNING: MAIL FRAUD IS A CRIME (see 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1346)
---------------------------cut here------------------------------
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 105 of 116
C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E B Y M A I L
It is hereby certified that service of this AFFIDAVIT has
been made on interested parties by mailing one copy thereof, on
this ninth day of March, 1982, in a sealed envelope with postage
prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:
Nicholas Brady, Secretary
Department of the Treasury
15th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia
Dated March 9, 1982
/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E. Trumane, Citizen/Principal, by Special Appearance, in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 106 of 116
Certified Mail Number: __________________________________________
Date: __________________________________________
John E. Trumane
c/o General Dellivery
Marin County
San Rafael, California Republic
united States of America
FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT
CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC )
) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
MARIN COUNTY )
PREAMBLE
The following Affidavit of Foreign Status is a public notice
to all interested parties concerning the Affiant's "birthrights"
and his "status" as an "AMERICAN INHABITANT", as that status
would apply with respect to the American States (the 50
independent States of the Union) and also with respect to the
"United States", as follows:
1. The Affiant, John E. Trumane, was born a Sovereign in
Massachusetts, which is one of the sovereign States of the Union
of several States joined together to comprise the confederation
known as the united States of America. He is, therefore, a
"nonresident alien" individual with respect to the "United
States", which entity obtains its exclusive legislative authority
and jurisdiction from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article
4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the united States
of America. The Affiant's parents were Sovereigns also, born in
sovereign States of the Union. As the progeny of Sovereign
people, the Affiant was born "... one of the sovereign people
.... A constituent member of the sovereignty synonymous with the
people.", Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 404. The Affiant is alien to
so-called 14th Amendment "United States" citizenship, and also
nonresident to so-called 14th Amendment State residency, and
therefore he is a "nonresident alien" with respect to both. As a
Sovereign whose Citizenship originated in Massachusetts by birth,
and who has remained intact in California since the year 1952,
the Affiant is also a foreigner (alien) with respect to the other
49 States of the Union and with respect to the "United States".
As a consequence of his birth, the Affiant is an "American
Inhabitant"; and further,
2. The Affiant, to the best of his informed knowledge, has
not entered into any valid agreements of "voluntary servitude";
and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 107 of 116
3. The Affiant is a "NONRESIDENT ALIEN" with respect to
the "United States", as that term is defined and used within the
Internal Revenue Code (Title 26, United States Codes), and/or
Title 27 U.S.C., and with respect to the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder as follows:
The Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, and/or Title 27, United
States Codes, and associated federal regulations, clearly and
thoroughly make provision for Americans born and living within
one of the 50 Sovereign States of America, to wit:
Section 1.871-4 Proof of residence of aliens.
(a) Rules of evidence. The following rules of evidence
shall govern in determining whether or not an alien
within the United States has acquired residence therein
for purposes of the income tax.
(b) Nonresidence presumed. An alien by reason of his
alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.
[26 CFR 1.871-4]
and further,
4. The Affiant was not born or naturalized in the "United
States", consequently he is not a "citizen of the "United States"
nor a "United States citizen", as those terms are defined and
used within the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27
U.S.C. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;
and, therefore, he is not subject to the limited, exclusive
territorial or political jurisdiction and authority of the
"United States" as defined.
The "United States" is definitive and specific when it
defines one of its citizens, as follows:
Section 1.1-1
(c) Who is a citizen. Every person born or naturalized in
the United States and subject to its jurisdiction is a
citizen.
[26 CFR 1.1-1(c)]
5. The Affiant is not a "citizen of the United States" nor
a "United States citizen living abroad", as those phrases are
defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or
27 U.S.C. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;
and further,
6. The Affiant is not a "resident alien residing within
the geographical boundaries of the United States", as that phrase
is defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.)
and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules and regulations promulgated
thereunder; and further,
7. The Affiant is not a "United States person", a
"domestic corporation", "estate", "trust", "fiduciary" or
"partnership" as those terms are defined and used within the
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 108 of 116
8. The Affiant is not an "officer", "employee" or "elected
official" of the "United States", of a "State" or of any
political subdivision thereof, nor of the District of Columbia,
nor of any agency or instrumentality of one or more of the
foregoing, nor an "officer" of a "United States corporation", as
those terms are defined and used within the Internal Revenue Code
(26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder; and further,
9. The Affiant receives no "income" or "wages with respect
to employment" from any sources within the territorial
jurisdiction of the "United States" and does not have an "office
or other fixed place of business" within the "United States" from
which the Affiant derives any "income" or "wages" as such, as
those terms and phrases are used and defined within the Internal
Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder; and further,
10. The Affiant has never engaged in the conduct of a
"trade or business" within the "United States", nor does the
Affiant receive any income or other remuneration effectively
connected with the conduct of a "trade or business" within the
"United States", as those terms are defined and used within the
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and 27 U.S.C. and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder; and further,
11. The Affiant receives no "income", "wages", "self-
employment income" or "other remuneration" from sources within
the "United States", as those terms are defined and used in the
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder. All remuneration paid to
the Affiant is for services rendered outside (without) the
exclusive territorial, political and legislative jurisdiction and
authority of the "United States"; and further,
12. The Affiant has never had an "office" or "place of
business" within the "United States", as those terms are defined
and used in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27
U.S.C. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; and
further,
13. The Affiant has never been a "United States employer",
nor "employer", nor "employee" which also includes but is not
limited to an "employee" and/or "employer" for a "United States"
"household", and/or "agricultural" activity, as those terms are
defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or
27 U.S.C. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;
and further,
14. The Affiant has never been involved in any "commerce"
within the territorial jurisdiction of the "United States" which
also includes but is not limited to "alcohol", "tobacco" and
"firearms" and Title 26, Subtitle D and E excises and privileged
occupations, as those terms are defined and used in the Internal
Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder; and further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 109 of 116
15. The Affiant has never been a "United States"
"withholding agent" as those terms are defined and used in the
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder; and further,
16. The Affiant had no liability for any type, kind or
class of Federal Income Tax in past years, and was and is
entitled to a full and complete refund of any amounts withheld,
because any liability asserted and amounts withheld were premised
upon a mutual mistake of fact regarding the Affiant's status.
The Affiant has never knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily
changed his Citizenship status nor has he ever knowingly,
intentionally, and voluntarily elected to be treated as a
"resident" of the "United States"; and further,
17. The Affiant, to the best of his current knowledge, owes
no "tax" of any type, class or kind to the "United States" as
those terms are defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code (26
U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder; and further,
18. The Affiant anticipates no liability for any type,
class or kind of federal income tax in the current year, because
the Affiant does not intend to reside in the "United States", he
does not intend to be treated as either a "resident" or a
"citizen" of the "United States", he is not and does not intend
to be involved in the conduct of any "trade or business" within
the "United States" or receive any "income" or "wages" from
sources within the "United States", as those terms are defined
and used in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27
U.S.C. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder; and
further,
19. The Affiant, by means of knowingly intelligent acts
done with sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and
consequences (Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748) never agreed or
consented to be given a federal Social Security Number (SSN),
same said as to a federal Employee Identification Number (EIN)
and, therefore, waives and releases from liability the "United
States" and any State of the Union of 50 States, for any present
or future benefits that the Affiant may be entitled to claim
under the Old-Age Survivors and the Disability Insurance Act,
and/or the Federal Unemployment Tax Act. Additionally, your
Affiant makes no claim to any present or future benefits under
any of the foregoing; and
20. Therefore, I, John E. Trumane, am a natural born free
inhabitant and, as such, a Sovereign Citizen/Principal inhabiting
the California Republic. Therefore, I am not "within the United
States" but lawfully I am "without the United States" (per Title
28, U.S.C., Section 1746, Subsection 1), and therefore I have no
standing capacity to sign any tax form which displays the perjury
clause pursuant to Title 28, Section 1746, Subsection 2; and
further,
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 110 of 116
PLEASE NOTE WELL: At no time will the Affiant construe any
of the foregoing terms defined within the Internal Revenue Code,
Title 26 and/or Title 27, United States Codes, or within any of
the other United States Codes, in a metaphorical sense. When
terms are not words of art and are explicitly defined within the
Code and/or within a Statute, the Affiant relies at all times
upon the clear language of the terms as they are defined therein,
NO MORE and NO LESS:
"... When aid to construction of the meaning of words, as
used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no
'rule of law' which forbids its use, however clear the words
may appear on 'superficial examination' ...."
[United States v. American Trucking Association]
[310 U.S. 534, 543,544 (1939)]
This unsworn certification is being executed WITHOUT the
"United States", pursuant to Section 1746(1) of Title 28, United
States Codes, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
I affirm under penalty of perjury under the laws of the
United States of America that I executed the foregoing for the
purposes and considerations herein expressed, in the capacity
stated, and that the statements contained herein are true and
correct, to the best of my knowledge.
Executed Anno Domini, on this the ___________ day in the month of
___________________________, 1982.
Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this ________________ day of
___________________________, 1982.
/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E. Trumane, Citizen/Principal, by special Appearance, in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.
John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 111 of 116
Acknowledgement
CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC )
) Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
MARIN COUNTY )
On this ______ day of ______________________________, 1982,
John E. Trumane did personally appear before me, and is known to
be the one described in, and who executed the foregoing
instrument, and acknowledged that he executed the same as his
free act and deed as a Citizen/Sovereign in this above named said
State of the Union. Purpose of notary is for identification
only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.
_____________________________________
Notary Public
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 112 of 116
Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested
c/o general delivery
San Rafael
California Republic
zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)
June 4, 1983
District Director
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o P.O. Box 2900
Sacramento, California Republic
Subject: (See Attached)
Dear Mr. Director:
I have returned your presentment UNOPENED and WITHOUT
DISHONOR since I had no Federal tax liability during calendar
years 1988, 1989, 1980, 1981 and 1982 Anno Domini.
Are you a "Holder in Due Course" (see UCC 3-302)? Please
answer "yes" or "no".
You have sent me an "Incomplete Instrument" (see UCC 3-115)
which you are trying to induce me by fraud to accept for your
benefit (see UCC 3-305(2)(b) & (c)).
Your presentment failed to exhibit the "last known address"
which has been communicated to you by prior written notice sent
from me via certified U.S. Mail, return receipt requested and
received.
Your presentment also exhibited an erroneous and rebuttable
presumption that I elected, knowingly, intentionally and
voluntarily, to become a "taxpayer" in the calendar years in
question, which presumption has already been conclusively
rebutted by lawful affidavits and other documents already served
on your agency.
You have not provided any consideration to me, nor have you
provided any performance of any nature for which I am indebted by
virtue of an instrument that bears my authorized "Signature" (see
UCC 3-401).
I had no course of dealing in the businesses of alcohol,
tobacco, firearms, or duties, exports or customs of any kind, nor
did I for "internal revenue" (see 18 U.S.C. 3283; for
definitions, see the History and Interpretive Notes following 18
U.S.C.S 3283).
Under separate cover I have returned your unsubstantiated
presentment for reasons including but not limited to those that
were written by me on the front side of the unopened envelope,
namely, that "liability and jurisdiction are denied due to
sender's bad faith (UCC 1-203)" and "WARNING: sending fraudulent
documents via U.S. Mail is a felony."
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 113 of 116
1. Please provide the instrument(s) that exhibit my
authorized signature(s), obligating me to your demands under a
valid "Agreement" (see UCC 1-201(3)).
2. Please provide verified proof of your claim that you
maintain a "Security interest" (see UCC 1-201(37)) in my Person
and/or property, making you a "Holder" (see UCC 1-201(20))
authorized to make presentments.
3. Please provide evidence of your authority to make a
presentment and of the "Territorial Application" (see UCC 1-105),
upon which we have agreed in writing, with my authorized
signature.
4. There are grounds for insecurity on my part.
Therefore, I demand "Assurance" under UCC 2-609 as to your lawful
"Delegation" (see UCC 2-210) to operate in a municipal capacity
within the California Republic (a sovereign State of the Union).
I also demand that you provide the lawful Delegation Order that
comes directly from the current Secretary of the Treasury and
applies to a "nonresident alien" as that term is defined at IRC
7701(b)(1)(B). (See also Treasury Decision 2313, not known to be
overruled.)
5. Since I have declared and affirmed the status of
"nonresident alien" and not the "person" described in IRC 7343,
please provide me with material, written evidence documenting the
source of income and from what "geographical" part of the
statutorily defined "United States" it came, in order to
substantiate your claim based on an agreement.
6. What presumption(s) are you making that cause you to
conclude that I, as a "nonresident alien", am effectively
connected with the conduct of a trade or business within (inside)
the statutorily defined "United States" that caused the attached
presentment to issue? What presumption(s) are you making that
cause you to think that I, as a "nonresident alien", had income
from sources within (inside) the statutorily defined "United
States" that caused the attached presentment to issue?
7. Please disclose the employee I.D. numbers and the real
names (not aliases) of all the employees of your agency who
determined that I, a "nonresident alien", had any tax liability
for the calendar years in question. Please also disclose a
verified copy of any and all returns calculated by the Secretary
of the Treasury, or by his lawful delegate, under IRC 6020,
signed in pen and ink (see UCC 3-401), and accompanied by
evidence of the requisite power of attorney and also proof that I
was legally obligated to make such returns as required by Title
26 U.S.C. per se (see IRC Sections 6020(a), and also
7851(a)(6)(A) concerning the effective date of Subtitle F of
Title 26).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 114 of 116
8. Please disclose the negotiable instrument(s) I am
alleged to have signed that were "Payable To" (see UCC 3-805),
and that would make you a "Holder in Due Course" authorized to
make presentment(s) to me and demand payment(s) of me.
9. For which principal are you operating in this instance:
the Federal Reserve banks, the "United States", both or neither?
10. Please disclose the OMB Number of the form which I, as
a "nonresident alien", am required to file when I neither make
income from a source within (inside) the statutorily defined
"United States" nor am I effectively connected with the conduct
of a trade or business within (inside) the statutorily defined
"United States" (see 26 CFR 1.871-1(b) and IRC 871(a) thru (d)).
NOTICE OF DEFAULT:
Failure to provide me with the above #1 thru #10 requisites,
should you disclose an agreement, invalidates the presentment you
attempted to make to me (see UCC 3-505(2)).
NOTICE OF DEADLINE:
YOU HAVE TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO REPLY, FROM
RECEIPT OF THIS CERTIFIED MAIL (see UCC 1-201(10)).
A "Fault" will consequently exist if you do not comply (see
UCC 1-201(16)). If and when a "Fault" exists, that "Fault" would
be on your part and would create provable frauds, through
material misrepresentation and withholding of material facts,
which would vitiate everything from the beginning, pursuant to
supplemental general principles of applicable law including but
not limited to fraud, misrepresentation, duress, coercion and
mistake (see UCC 1-103).
Because I am a non-domestic "nonresident alien" with respect
to the federal government ("not a resident of the state of the
forum"), I have no recourse to a remedy at law on instrument(s)
that you have not properly presented. Your presentment(s) are
then being made under a fraudulent and "Unconscionable Contract"
(see UCC 2-302), and are discharged without resort to a
COMMERCIAL tribunal (see UCC 3-601(2) & (3)).
Your failure to answer in the prescribed time will be deemed
acceptance that I am correct and that you have no such
instrument(s) to substantiate your authority to present and
demand payment or anything else from me. Your presentment will
vacate on its own.
During the calendar years in question, I deny that I was a
"taxpayer" as that term is defined for the "internal" revenue of
the statutorily defined "United States" in the STATUTE-MERCHANTS
CODE. That Code is primarily for either "United States citizens"
or "resident aliens" (see IRC 865(g)(1)(A) & (B)); I deny that I
am defined as such and I deny that I am a "United States citizen"
or a "resident alien" for "internal" revenue purposes. I am also
excluded from having an "Identifying Number" (i.e. Social
Security Number) under 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g).
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 115 of 116
Thank you very much for your consideration.
Sincerely yours,
/s/ John E. Trumane
John E. Trumane
Sovereign Sui Juris
P.S. For your convenience in responding,
I have enclosed a SASE with my correct
and current mailing location. Please
update your records accordingly.
attachments: photocopy of refused envelope,
self-addressed stamped envelope (SASE)
copies: Mark T. Extort, IRS San Rafael
IRS Lien Desk, Sacramento (SA-5363)
Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Washington, D.C.
Rep. Lynn Woolsey, House of Representatives
Correspondence with the "IRS":
Page 116 of 116
# # #
Return to Table of Contents for
John E. Trumane