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your words and actions to date indicate to me that you are operating completely outside of numerous American laws never repealed.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