Affidavit Response to Your Letter FTB 4619MEO, Ref. (1)1 of 19

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

LEGAL STAFF of the

California Franchise Tax Board (FTB),

PO Box 942840

Sacramento, Calif (94240-0000)

References:

(1)Your UNSIGNED AND UNAUTHENTICATED (anonymous and questionable) Notice dated June 18, 2001 addressed to Christopher M. Hansen, 548-17-5430.

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

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

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

Enclosure(s):

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

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

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

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

Dear Sir(s),

This Legal Notice is in response to your Ref. (1). It is my intent to briefly address the issues you raised and to close this letter with Encl. (1) and is submitted within the 30 day window requested in Ref. (1). Pursuant to UCC §1-205(6), this correspondence shall serve as a Formal Legal and Constructive Notice that you are requested to refute any and all claims that I make in this affidavit via a responsive affidavit signed by someone of competent authority under penalty of perjury, and containing a full and complete signature and legal name of a natural person. Those facts in this affidavit that you do not refute shall constitute agreed upon, established, and admitted facts on your part that will be used against you in any pending Civil Action for Refund relating to Ref. (2). This protocol henceforth shall be a “Course of Dealing and Usage of Trade” established between us under U.C.C. Section 1.205(6). (see for further details).

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

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

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

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

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

  1. Alleged “Frivolous Return(s)”
  2. According to your own definition in Ref. (1), a frivolous return is a “substantially incorrect” return, or one that doesn’t have any financial information upon which to assess a tax liability. I would argue that even if I submitted NO financial information whatsoever but a statement of residency in California or a California FTB form 590, then my return would STILL be adequate to compute my state tax liability, which is ZERO.
  3. During Ref. (3), Patrick indicated that “the only thing that belongs on a W-2 form is taxable income”. Ironically, that is exactly what the 3525 forms I submitted with Ref.(2) reflected, which was my income subject to state tax, which is zero for residents of California.
  4. Section 17951 indicates that gross income
  5. The burden of proof therefore shifts squarely against you to demonstrate:
  6. What the law (not you, but the law as described in this letter) says was incorrect about my tax return(s) in Ref. (2).
  7. What information is in fact missing form the return that is necessary to compute the correct amount of tax. I can’t truthfully include my W-2 income as taxable on line 12 of form 540 or line 1(a) of form 540X, because as I point out below, this income is not taxable because I am a resident of California. Therefore, the returns in Ref. (2) are substantially correct in my view and reflect the correct amount of income on these lines.
  8. Alleged insufficient information to assess “taxpayer’s” income (R&TC Section 18501.
  9. First of all, I claim that I am NOT a “taxpayer” or one who is liable to pay state income tax as a resident of California, and the burden of proving that I am still rests on you.
  10. Ref. (2) contained all the information you require to compute my taxable income, which is zero. The only think you need to know is that I am a resident of California, but not “the State of California”. This fact alone establishes that I have no taxable income, as I explain in section 3 below.
  11. I have included form W-2’s for tax years 1998 and 1999 and 2000, but since I have no taxable income as a resident of California (but not “the State of California), I had no requirement to even file a return and am due a refund of all taxes erroneously paid, which agrees with the numbers indicated on the form 540X already submitted and with Encl (2). The amount that should appear on line 12 of my California 540 form should therefore be “zero” and my taxable income is zero, and all state taxes paid should be refunded.
  12. Alleged alteration of the Jurat:
  13. Ref. (2) was submitted under penalty of perjury, which is all that is required top make it a valid return.
  14. Please clarify what aspect of the jurat, if any, was altered on any forms submitted as part of Ref. (2), as I am unaware of any changes to the jurat on any of the forms I submitted. During Ref. (3), Patrick, your representative, assured me that this particular issue did not apply to me and so I won’t address it further.
  15. Application of penalties:
  16. You may only impose penalties for delinquency relate to tax due, and I have paid taxes I wasn’t liable for on all amounts earned, so there is no penalty you can assess.
  17. There can be no penalty or criminal charge for failing to file a return because you now have returns for the years 1998-2000 which I continue to certify under penalty of perjury as being true, correct, and complete. The fact that theses returns don’t contain information documenting taxable income I don’t have doesn’t make them frivolous, it simply makes them accurate. You can’t apply a penalty and duress to force me to commit perjury on the form and violate my good faith beliefs about income tax liability, because that would make my signature involuntary and signed under duress and thereby invalidate it based on the definition of “duress found below in section 4. The burden of proof therefore rests squarely on you based on this letter to demonstrate a tax liability or that I am an alleged “taxpayer” in this instance because I completely refute such claims and my claims are consistent with your FTB form 590’s assertion that residents of California aren’t liable for taxes or withholding.

4.3.It represents hypocrisy and fraud and treason of the highest order for you to imply now or at any time in the future that any signatures I put on any California income tax returns now or at any time in the future is voluntary, considering the penalties you have assessed on me that were based on my good faith belief and unrefuted and substantiated (by your silence and Verified Default) legal research contained in Ref. (2).

4.4.Consequently, from this point on, a presumption is established that ALL future and current California income tax returns other than those for a complete refund in full (like that in Encl 2) shall be assumed to be submitted under perjury that this perjury was a direct result of duress on your part, and this presumption shall exist whether or not it is stated on the tax return. A certified copy of this letter will be kept on file in case you ever try to prosecute me for liability about any of the statements made on any future state income tax returns that are not refunds. The only way to remove and rebut this presumption in the future is with the following actions on your part:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  1. I ask that you please completely read the rest of this letter (and chapter 5 of The Great IRS Hoax: Why We Don’t Owe Income Tax, latest edition, free for the downloading at so that you can completely understand the comments above, or you will take the comments completely out of context and reach an irrational and unwarranted conclusion that may incur a risk of prosecution and personal liability on your part for malfeasance and extortion.
  2. If you do not honor the wishes expressed in this letter, then I will promptly pursue an administrative remedy as far as I can take it and then see you personally in court, and official immunity will not protect you from your lawless acts of extortion on a sovereign Citizen of California. The materials I prepare to prosecute you will be shared (on with 20,000 other like-minded freedom fighters to help them prosecute your colleagues after we are finished with you. You might win one battle, but the sheer number of us, our dedication, and the information we share with each other over the Internet will win the war against your ignorance and fraud in the end. You can only hide the truth and promote ignorance for so long before people figure out the fraud you have foisted upon them. This is not a battle about pride or even my own needs or wants. It is a fulfillment of truth and justice and the oath I took when I joined the U.S. military and which our founding fathers also shared and this goal is more important to me than comfort, property, or life itself:

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

3. ADDITIONAL SIGNIFICANT ISSUES REGARDING TAX LIABILITY:

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

  1. I have included Encls. (2) and (3) to initiate my refund of all state taxes paid for the year 2000. Please use the form 3525 form included with Ref. (2) as the W-2 information, as it is still accurate. The original incorrect and therefore VOIDED W-2 forms provided by my employer are included only for completeness, but you are advised NOT to use these forms. They are substantially incorrect in reporting that I have taxable wage income as a resident of California.
  2. California Form 590 indicates that residents of California are exempt from state income taxes and withholding. The form states:

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

ٱ Individuals—Certification of Residency

I am a resident of California and I reside at the address shown above. If I become a nonresident at any time, I will promptly inform the withholding agent. See instructions for Form 590. General Information D. for the definition of resident.

B. Law

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

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

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

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