From: Ima Hurt,                                          Certified mail to:    1)  0000 0000 0000 0000 0000
12345 Freedom Ln.                                                                    2)  0000 0000 0000 0000 0000       
Justice , California                                                                      3)  0000 0000 0000 0000 0000       
                                                                           
June 21, 2010                                             

To: 1)  Lisa Martini				     
            Franchise Tax Board, 600 W Santa Ana Blvd., Suite 300, Santa Ana, CA 92701,
       2)  Patrick  (no Surname disclosed) employee #073
            Glynice (no Surname disclosed), 
            Angie    (no Surname disclosed), 
            Daniel   (no Surname disclosed),
            Ceylon  (no Surname disclosed),
            Franchise Tax Board, PO BOX 2966, Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-2966, and                                        
       3)  JoAnn   (no Surname disclosed), Greg Thomas, Brenda (Hicks) Jordan
            State of California Franchise Tax Board, P.O. Box 2952, Sacramento, CA 95812.

NOTICE AND DEMAND

TO THE ABOVE-ADDRESSED PARTIES AND ALL OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES [see foot note] PLEASE TAKE NOTICE OF THE FOLLOWING: 

Like many people, I shied away from the complex tax codes. I was misled that everybody owes federal and state income taxes, until I learned about IRS agents, attorneys, CPA's, and paralegals, who discovered that the tax codes were misinterpreted. I used this information to correct the records with the tax agencies, trusting that the "revenue agents  would not deceive me". 

To my dismay and ever-increasing suspicion, instead of cooperation, I received nonresponsive or evasive "replies". The revenue agents, appear to indeed misapply the codes and exceed their jurisdiction. The cases referenced herein, denounced "compelled taxation", recognized the abolition of slavery, and reinforced the constitutionally ordained limitations of the legislative powers. I found no constitutional authority empowering legislators to impose a "fair share duty" upon people's fundamental liberty to make a living, or to regulate people's productivity by licensing their economic means, for the purpose of mandatory withholding at their work place. Throughout the years, funds were withheld from me by third parties, and transmitted to the federal and state tax agencies. Said funds were mistaken as related to taxable income. I tried to correct the errors by using the agency forms. The State (FTB) revenue agents (hereinafter "Agents") replied at some point that the form  "...has been determined to be frivolous", and demanded that I file a "valid tax return". (Exhibit x)  

"A claim, or defense, is frivolous if a proponent can present no rational argument based upon the evidence or law in support of that claim, or defense". [ Black's Law dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991]
[Emphasis added]

The design of the forms did not allow any opportunity for “rational argument”. I offered to make all the necessary changes (Exhibit x), if Agents would provide the forms which, according to Agents, would be considered "valid" for correcting records. 

Agents dishonored my offer, by providing no responsive answers, no "valid return" forms, no liability statute, and no proof of any alleged claim. I found Agents' evasive maneuvers to be highly suspect and uncharacteristic of public servants. 

Furthermore, Agents undertook a strategy of mailing unsigned Notices and requests for payment, effectively turning my quest into a struggle to preserve my rights. Agents seem to espouse the broad contention that, being paid for working, represents "taxable income" because "everything that comes in" is "income"  within the definition of "gross income".  Clearly, the Supreme Court disagreed.

Agents ignored my demands for clarification and my offers to meet and settle the issues (Exhibit x), ignored judicial precedent, and continued their extralegal enforcement, under the guise of policy.  I believe Agents trespassed on my rights by violating their contract to public office, as follows:
A. Agents' appear to deceitfully reclassify the "nontaxpayer" into "taxpayer" status (Exhibit X). Revenue laws relate to "taxpayers". Revenue provisions distinguish between "taxpayer" and "non-taxpayer". The U. S. Senate recognizes the "taxpayer" as a separate person, distinct from the "nontaxpayer"(Exhibit 3). Throughout time, the courts have recognized the natural rights as       the foundational principles, and also upheld nontaxpayers' rights. 

B. Agents ignored the distinction between "taxpayer" and "nontaxpayer", and acted without a judicial review. Such review is part of due process, and is essential to shield people from being injured by administrative presumptions of status. Agents have no judicial authority to determine people's "relinquishment of rights", which must be established "before  the appellation of 'taxpayer' is bestowed upon them". 

C.  Agents mailed no certified copies to inform me of any verified proof of liability for a 

      specific tax.  Agents reach beyond constitutional boundaries when they act based on personal      opinions or popular beliefs, which are not laws, statutes, regulations, or judicial reviews.
 
      Since slavery was abolished, nowhere in the Constitution are statutory enactments allowed to compel transfers of rights or property, without informed consent. The statutory scheme offers programs to members who consent to participate by voluntarily entering the jurisdiction of a particular program, for specific privileges or benefits. Membership to such programs creates specific excise-taxable-liabilities, which become payable through "taxpayer" compliance. 

      The delegated legislative powers limit taxation to specific means, reasons and circumstances.  Agents are not endowed with the power to exert presumptions on non-participants, who are not within their authority. People have no "general liability" for excise taxes, occupation taxes, 
       or taxes on income,  which are not the same as the direct taxes on property. 

D.  Agents provided no statutes supporting their assessments and determinations of  deficiency for the alleged liabilities or penalties. Also, Agents provided no implementing regulations, and sent no certified copies of any verified deficiency which might make me subject to Agents' authority, or might give Agents lawful "reasons" to keep my funds.
 
      Such lawful "reasons" could be:  

      1) if I entered a contract by which I "owed a duty" to the state,  2) if I owed a "franchise tax" for a "trade or business", in the character of a corporation or public officer, which may carry a duty to the state;  3) if anything were conferred to me as a franchised, "special privilege", which does not belong to the people, or citizens of the country, as a matter of "common right",    
      4) if I requested or used state, or State "benefits"; 5) if I had a "tax liability", as a condition precedent to demands, or  6) If anything were given to me for which the state, or the State "can ask return".  Without a meaningful meeting of the minds on essential elements, there can be no enforceable contract. 

E.  Agents ignored my rights, and issued garnishment orders (Exhibit 6), without valid verification 
      of a "debt" or judgment, ignored my objections, and collected (Exhibit 7), on mere presumptions (Exhibit 8). All acts were conducted without any counter-testimony to my affidavits, and in disregard of my requests (Exhibits 2,7,8), and my Notices (Exhibits 8,9). 

      Agents also mailed unsigned penalties (Exhibits10-15), mailed unverified notices (Exhibits 16-19), determined taxes (Exhibits 20-24) without jurisdiction, and without replying to my
      requests for clear, specific information  (Exhibits 2, 7-9, 25-27). As if to add insult to injury, after Agents scoffed at my raising Constitutional safeguards (Exhibit #),  they themselves used "general" Constitutional references for "All tax years" (Exhibit #). I suspect such maneuvers are a sneaky attempt to supposedly "legitimize" Agents' trespass on my rights, and to minimize or avoid being held accountable for misuse and abuse of their official immunity.

F.  Agents failed to disclose whether they presume that a W-4 Withholding Agreement for the Social Security  contributions creates any obligations to pay "individual or personal income taxes". 
      26 CFR §301.6109-1(d)(3) instructs Agents that Social Security numbers are not to be used as "taxpayer" identification numbers. Also, "... railroad benefits, like social security benefits, are not contractual and may be altered or even eliminated at any time."  United States Railroad Retirement Board v. Fritz, 449 U.S. 166 (1980); According to the equal protection of the law, if the "benefit" is not contractual, then "the payment" is not contractual. See Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1, and Title 42 USC, Section 1981.

      Agents' conclusive presumptions were annulled by the contrary evidence provided in my sworn affidavits (Exhibits #, #, #). A “determination” may only be made after consideration of all relevant facts, statutes, and applicable regulations. 

G.  The FTB disclosure officer confirmed (Exhibit #) that Agents are in fact acting under a claim for 
 federal income taxes which are territorial in character, and governed by federal regulations.
The officer's disclosure resonates with the provisions for taxation of federal income as promulgated in the Buck Act and the ACTA  jurisdictional agreement between federal and state agencies ( Exhibit #). "... the states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government…"  Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 187. 

The separation of powers doctrine requires an agreement before taxing the federal income of trades, businesses or occupations on federal territory within a state of the Union. Such agreements however, may not trump Constitutional canons: "The canon of construction which teaches that legislation of Congress, unless a contrary intent appears, is meant to apply only within the territorial jurisdiction of the United States, Blackmer v. United States, 284 U.S. at 437, 52 S.Ct. at page 254, 76 L.Ed. 375, is a valid approach whereby unexpressed congressional intent may be ascertained." Foley Bros v. Ilardo, 336 U.S. 281, 69 S.Ct. 575, 93 L.Ed. 680 (1949)

"See also Gibbons v. Ogden, 9 Wheat., at 195 ("The enumeration presupposes something not enumerated"). The Constitution mandates this uncertainty by withholding from Congress a       plenary police power that would authorize enactment of every type of legislation. See U.S.       Const., Art. I, 8. Congress has operated within this framework of legal uncertainty ever since this      Court determined that it was the judiciary's duty "to say what the law is." Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch. 137, 177 (1803) (Marshall, C. J.). Any possible benefit from eliminating this "legal      uncertainty" would be at the expense of the Constitution's system of enumerated powers." 
U.S. v. Lopez, 514 U.S.549 (1995) 

      " No interference by Congress with the business of citizens transacted within a State is warranted by the Constitution, except such as is strictly incidental to the exercise of powers clearly granted to the legislature."..."Thus limited, and thus only, it reaches every subject, and may be exercised at discretion. But, it reaches only existing subjects. Congress cannot authorize a trade or business within a State in order to tax it... "... the recognition by the acts of Congress of the power and right of the States to tax, control, or regulate any business carried on within its limits, is entirely consistent with an intention on the part of Congress to tax such business for National purposes." License Tax Cases, 72 U.S. 462 (1866) [Emphasis added]

     " Other restrictions are, of course, found in Article I, Sections 2 and 9 requiring direct taxes to be apportioned according to population; Section 8 requiring uniformity; and Section 9 prohibiting export duties." Penn Mutual Indemnity Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 277 F.2d 16 (3rd Cir., 1960) [Emphasis added]

      Title 18 U.S.C. § 7 specifies that the territorial jurisdiction of the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging to any of the 50 states, and Title 40 U.S.C. § 255 specifies the legal conditions that must be fulfilled for the United States government to have exclusive or shared jurisdiction within the area of lands belonging to the States of the Union.

      Furthermore, Section 7851 of Title 26 USC reveals that the income taxes under Subtitle A were
      extinguished upon the enactment of the 1954 Code (details Exhibit #), and the IRC index lists
      only the liability of Citizens with income from insular possessions. 

      Federal administrative office regulations are exercised under the limited jurisdiction found in 
      Title 4  USC, ( Exhibit ##), and may not create liabilities for people, or the states. 

      "..all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are 
       reserved to the States or to the people." [10th Amendment]

      CALIFORNIA GOVERNMENT CODE, Section 54950 states: "In enacting this chapter, the
      Legislature finds and declares that the public commissions, boards  and councils and the other
      public agencies in this State exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business . . ." 

Agents appear to replace " exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business ", with "exist to conduct people", or "exist to make demands", or "exist to sanction". Constitutional canons bind Government Codes to specific jurisdiction which cannot extend Agents' authority over people "making a living" in occupations of common right. Agents appear to conveniently "presume" or "assume" the existence of a "trade or business", in order to justify their allegations of a liability within Agents' jurisdiction. Clearly, there can be no  legal sanction or penalty issued through unlawful imposition of Agents' "assumed" jurisdiction. I informed Agents (Exhibit #) that I retain all my rights. The right to contract is a constitutionally protected right and cannot be imposed, forbidden, hindered, or diminished. Legislators have no constitutional authority to enact statutes, or regulations, that could grant Agents an immoral, predatory license, to "generate revenue" by use of complex administrative techniques and evasive replies. Nor can statutes allow wordsmith definitions and regulations to enable Agents to act in ways which could easily be construed as "syndicated crimes", or to engage in legal violence to dupe people,  or use "legal strategies" to bring even "taxpayers" in the position to prove a negative (Exhibit #). 

Agents have no authority to demand payments for imaginary, ambiguous "statutory privileges", or to force people into accepting  privileges, benefits or services. No legislation can vote away people's rights and grant administrative authority to entrap, trick, intimidate, or compel people to either purchase, or to provide services. Such acts would be racketeering, or practicing slavery. 
With freedom of choice as the guiding principle, it has been held that the "element of voluntariness" is vitiated . . . under duress brought on by government action, see e.g. McGucken v. United States, 407 F.2d 1349, 1351, 187 Ct.Cl. 284 (Ct.Cl), Perlman v U.S., 490 F2d. 933. [Emphasis added]

Each and every year, 2004 through the present, I asked Agents for verified proof behind Agents' allegations, presentments, penalties, determinations or claims. Absent specific answers and verified evidence, I could not make any informed corrections, and I can not assume, presume or guess any liability for Agents' ambiguous and misleading correspondence. Agents' letters lacked certified copies of verified debt, duty, liability, contract, or breach of a contract. Agents made no attempt to prove their jurisdiction, or show a lawful "reason" for garnishing, or not returning my funds. 

As one of the people, I am owed answers. I am not aware of, nor have Agents shown proof of any predicament that would subject me to comply with a specific statute and regulation related to Agents' administrative authority, procedures, policies, notices, demands, or penalties. 

In light of all the exhibits and footnotes herein, Agents appear to operate an apparatus for control and profit, counter to constitutional oath, Supreme Court rulings, United States Codes, Civil Code, Business and Professions Code, Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, California Government Code. 

My letters gave Agents sufficient notice of trespass due to lack of jurisdiction. Instead of bearing their burden of proof, and disclosing  all the elements, Agents rushed to label my efforts as "frivolous", and to "tack on" penalties. 

Agents ignored my offers to settle the issues, by mailing nonresponsive replies to my inquiries, and by ignoring my demands for verified evidence and cross examination. Agents' garnishments from my work are factual evidence of abuse, due to the lack of liability, jurisdiction, or an order by a court of competent jurisdiction.

Agents appear to willfully misinterpret the statutes and regulations as a license to engage in predatory administrative "technicalities", instead of providing transparency and forthright answers for timely corrections. The hearings held at the FTB office are recorded proof of Agent's disingenuous statements (Exhibit #) about their authority. The records also show the lack of Agents' cooperation to provide any opportunity for me to cross examine their purported "evidence".

I can only reason that Agents are acting in concert, under color of office, in such manner as to entrap me in some administrative scheme, through relentless, unfounded presentments under color of law. Agents' notices and proposed assessments reflect a desire to use delay tactics, for the apparent reason of charging interest and unlawfully keeping the fruits of my labor and live at my expense. Such tactics also appear as a convenient way to hide Agents' negligence, or fraud. 
Due to both - Agents' actions and lack of actions - the administrative process has been exhausted.

"The makers of our Constitution undertook to secure conditions favorable to the pursuit of happiness. They recognized the significance of man's spiritual nature, of his feelings and of his intellect.... They sought to protect Americans in their beliefs, their thoughts, their emotions and their sensations. They conferred, as against the Government, the right to be let alone - the most comprehensive of rights and the right most valued by civilized men." [Emphasis added]
Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438, 478 (1928);  Washington v. Harper, 494 U.S. 210 (1990)
CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS, SECTION 1. :  All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
• Constitutional Liberty or Freedom. Such freedom as is enjoyed by the citizens of a country or state under the protection of its constitution. The aggregate of those personal, civil, and political rights of the individual which are guaranteed by the Constitution and secured against invasion by the government or any of its agencies. [Black's Law Dictionary, 6th Edition, 1991]
" All subjects over which the sovereign power of a state extends, are objects of taxation; but those over which it does not extend, are, upon the soundest principles, exempt from taxation ... The sovereignty of a state extends to everything which exists by its own authority, or is introduced by its permission;"  McCulloch v. State of Maryland, 17 U.S. 316, 4 L.Ed. 579, 4 Wheat. 316 (1819)
INJURIES

Because Agents exceeded their authority, I,  Ima Hurt, have suffered the following injuries:

1.  Loss of the amounts over-withheld, which Agents have not returned, in the amount of $?00.00, $?.000.00, $?,000.00 and $?000.00 for years 200? thru 200? respectively. Subtotal: $??,000.00 

2.  Time spent for ? years to prepare and reply, estimated to be ?,??? hours at $??/ hr. Subtotal: $ ???,000.00

3.  Legal and paralegal consulting costs; Total $?,???.00; 

4.  Anguish, loss of sleep and of physical health. Amount of damages to date $??,000. 

5.  Financial hardship,  collateral defamation, deterioration of my relationships with my work associates and my family, and interference with my pursuit of happiness.

DUTY

The duties for Agents are codified in the United States Codes, California Penal Code, Civil Code, Business and Professions Code and California Government Code.

All principals are responsible for Agents' exercise of their duties. Notice to Agents is notice to the principal; notice to the principal is notice to Agents.

All government Agents are public employees, and are duty bound by contract to the oath of office.

Agents have a moral, lawful and legal duty to exercise proper diligence to verify their policies do not infringe upon longstanding principles and constitutionally protected rights. Agents may not act against people so as to effectively change their duty into injury. All Agents have a duty to know and follow the laws which bind them, and should be held accountable to the highest standards of professional conduct: "Administration should be both reasonable and vigorous. It should be conducted with as little delay as possible and with great courtesy and considerateness. It should never try to overreach, and should be reasonable within the bounds of law and sound administration." (FTB mission statement) 
The Codes disallow harmful acts such as, conspiring to extort, misrepresent, deceive or conceal critical information, in order to perpetuate error for the purpose of  gain. Section 1986 of the Civil Code also disallows failure to act in such ways which would prevent injury to anyone. 

BREACH OF AUTHORITY, JURISDICTION AND BREACH OF DUTY

I believe Agents are breaching their oath of office, authority, jurisdiction and duty:

1.   By dishonoring their burden to prove their claims; 

2.   By failing to provide the requested information  which was essential for timely correction of errors and elimination of unnecessary administrative harassment; 

3.   By unjust enrichment from the fruits of my labor, a violation of a constitutionally protected right.

4.   By capriciously disregarding my sworn affidavits and my verified evidence, while arbitrarily denying my refunds (Exhibits 28, 29, 30) based on presumptions which hold no legal weight; 

5.   By mailing uncertified, unverified solicitations and unfounded penalties. 

6.   By assuming jurisdiction, and continuing to act under color of office and color of law;

7.   By unlawfully collecting garnishments and processing unfounded liens and levies;  

8.   By misrepresenting their authority, with full knowledge of the correct facts, such as to induce me to enter into agreements which I would not enter if Agents disclosed all facts.(Exhibit #)

The moral, public and private laws, have inherent limitations in their authority and cannot be construed as a license for Agents to cause injury. See Bill of Rights, 18 USC §§ 241, 242, 654, 1581; 42 USC §§ 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1994; The 14th Amendment. (Exhibit of all cited)

DAMAGES
Because Agents have demonstrated that Agents have no intention to return my over-withheld sums (Exhibit xs) because Agents have no right of ownership interest over said sums; because Agents reached outside the scope of Agents' lawful authority and acted under color of office and color of law when Agents should have not so done; because Agents have harassed, extorted and threatened to keep extorting, now therefore, Agents are liable for the following damages for the injuries suffered by Ima Hurt: special damages of $100,000.00 and general damages (same as special damages) of $100,000.00. Total $200,000.00
DEMAND
1.  Therefore, I demand that within 21 days from the date of service of this Notice and Demand, Agents provide all the facts and proof as referenced in the above paragraphs A thru G, or show good cause, if more time is needed. The elements I request are prerequisite for proper diligent discharge of Agents' lawful and moral functions under oath and public contract.
2.   names 1,2,3,4,5,6 Agents, and each of them, within 60 days of service of this Notice & Demand, in good faith, do their duty and pay the damages suffered by me at their hands; or within 21 days from the service of this Notice and Demand, show cause why said demand should not be enforced in a court of record in California.
3.   Agents notify me in writing of the specific element/s creating a presumption of "liability", and the  "valid" forms and information so that I can make the corrections to erroneous information returns and income statements filed by third parties in regards to me, and avoid exposure to any further harassment by Agents.
4.  Agents notify me in writing that the FTB account in regards to me is closed and no deficiency exists for the years 200?, 200?, 200?, 200?, 200? and 200?. 
5.  No Agents,  FTB personnel or anyone acting in concert with them shall engage in any further collection, or any acts of harassment against me.
DEFAULT
If Agents do not answer within the 21 days, any and all un-contradicted   statements, presumptions and enclosures herein (Exhibits 1 thru ), shall become acquiesced as facts in the record, and Agents' non responsive replies, or collection attempts may be construed as willful.
If Agents fail to satisfy the demand within the allotted time after having been duly served with this notice and demand, then by tacit procuration Ima Hurt, her nominee or her assigns will determine for Agents the facts, their duties, and the damages owed by Agents.
Further, if Agents fail to satisfy the demand, then Ima Hurt may take lawful action in a court of record (in personam and in rem), to defend against Agents and persons acting in concert with Agents who have caused  any injuries to  Ima Hurt; to secure her substantive rights; and to redeem the aforementioned damages owed to her.

In order to avoid any misunderstanding, all communications shall henceforth be on the record, i.e. in writing and duly served to: Ima Hurt, 12345 Freedom Ln., Justice, California.

Signature:_____________________ Date ____________

Enclosures: Exhibits 1 thru ?