












                           Appendix O:
                                
                 Constructive Notice and Demand








































                        Page O - 1 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


Reader's Notes:























































                        Page O - 2 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


Registered U.S. Mail                              Mailing Address
Return Receipt Requested                          City, State
Postal Serial #                                   Postal Zone:

                                                  Date

District Director
Internal Revenue Service
City, State
Postal Zone:


Re:  Constructive Notice, Demand, and Statement
     Regarding IRS Request for Form 1040 Tax Return


Dear Mr. Director:

     This correspondence  addresses your  agency's request that I
file a Form 1040 tax return and pay a tax for which I am not made
liable.   Enclosed with your agency's request was IRS Notice 557,
entitled "Who  Must File  a Federal  Income Tax Return".  Because
you are  in the  initial stages of making a serious error with me
regarding your  lawful jurisdiction  and authority in this "1040"
matter, I  hereby issue  this  constructive  notice,  demand  and
statement.

     This constructive  notice is  to advise  you  of  my  lawful
status as  a sovereign  natural born free State Citizen under the
U.S. Constitution  (see 2:1:5),  that is,  a "non-taxpayer" under
the law,  and to  demand that  you comply  with all  due  process
requirements of  the law  and  permanently  curtail  any  further
information collection requests and proceedings against my person
and my property.

     Be advised  that I  am not  a "citizen of the United States"
and I  am not  a "resident  of the United States".  I am and have
always been  a "nonresident  alien" from birth (my legal status),
as that  term is  now defined  in Title  26 and  its regulations.
Among its  other purposes,  this letter  now  explicitly  rebuts,
retroactively to  my date  of birth,   any erroneous presumptions
and terminates  any erroneous elections of "U.S. residence" which
were established as a consequence of demonstrable mistakes, by me
and others,  which resulted  in part  from the  vagueness that is
evident in  Title 26  and its  regulations, and  in part from the
actual and  constructive frauds  which have been perpetrated upon
all Americans  by the  Congress and  other federal  officials  at
least since the year 1913.

     To demonstrate  the vagueness  to which  I refer,  after  an
honest and  a diligent  search which  now stretches  over several
years, I  am still  unable to  find in Title 26 any statute which
defines the  "intent" of that title (see 26 USC 7701(a) et seq.),
nor have  I been  able to find a statutory definition of the term


                        Page O - 3 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


"income" (even  though "gross  income" and  "ordinary income" are
defined).  My family obligations now demand that I stop searching
for definitions  which evidently  do not exist, and shift to you,
Mr.  Director,   the  burden  of  finding  and  exhibiting  these
definitions.  I stand on my rights to substantive due process, as
guaranteed by  the Bill  of Rights,  which nullify  any  and  all
actions you and others in your agency may take under the presumed
"authority" of  vague and arbitrary statutes and their associated
regulations.


     To demonstrate  the fraud  to which  I refer,  there are now
literally  thousands  of  certified  documents  which  constitute
material evidence  proving, beyond any reasonable doubt, that the
so-called 16th  Amendment was never ratified.  Your agency can no
longer rely  on it  as law, as was done by Commissioner Donald C.
Alexander in  The Federal  Register of March 29, 1974, Volume 39,
No. 62,  page 11572.   At  that time, Mr. Alexander published his
official statement about the IRS as follows:


     Since 1862,  the Internal  Revenue Service  has undergone  a
     period  of   steady  growth   as  the  means  for  financing
     Government operations  shifted from  the levying  of  import
     duties  to   internal  taxation.    Its  expansion  received
     considerable impetus  in 1913  with the  ratification of the
     Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution under which Congress
     received constitutional  authority  to  levy  taxes  on  the
     income of individuals and corporations.
                                                 [emphasis added]

Contrast this  statement with  the ruling  of an  Illinois  State
Court:   "It is  as much  a nullity  as if it had been the act or
declaration of  an unauthorized assemblage of individuals," (Ryan
v. Lynch,  68 Ill.  160).  Several District Courts of Appeal have
been presented  with the question of whether or not the so-called
16th Amendment was properly ratified.  See:


  Miller vs United States,   868 F.2d  236 (1989,  7th Circuit)
  U.S. vs Sitka,             845 F.2d   43 (1988,  2nd Circuit)
  Stubbs vs Commissioner,    797 F.2d  936 (1986, 11th Circuit)
  United States vs Stahl,    792 F.2d 1438 (1986,  9th Circuit)
  United States vs Ferguson, 793 F.2d  828 (1986,  7th Circuit)
  Sisk vs Commissioner,      791 F.2d   58 (1986,  6th Circuit)


     It has been well documented that Philander C. Knox knew that
the so-called  16th Amendment  had not  been properly ratified by
the 48  States in 1913, yet he certified its ratification anyway.
This is fraud.  The courts, when presented with this overwhelming
problem, have  decided that the fraud perpetrated upon the people
was in  the nature  of a "political" question and, therefore, not
proper for judicial review.


                        Page O - 4 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


     Since the  so-called 16th  Amendment has now been declared a
"political" question, my "political" actions are deserving of the
protection guaranteed  by the First Amendment to the Constitution
for the  United States  of  America.    Boycotting  the  Internal
Revenue Service  and the  income tax, under the protection of the
First Amendment, is definitely a part of our democratic political
process, until  such time  as Congress  (or the  federal  Courts)
decide to resolve this political question once and for all.

     This constructive  notice to  you is based upon legal advice
which I  have received  from a number of attorneys, CPA's, income
tax professionals,  and upon  in-depth research into the Internal
Revenue Code,  applicable  regulations,  court  cases,  the  laws
concerning "Delegation  of Authority"  (i.e. the Federal Register
Act and  the Administrative  Procedure Act), the Privacy Act, and
the U.S. Constitution (the supreme law of the land).

     One particularly  revealing document (which I will emphasize
herein) that  proves my  legal position in this tax matter is the
Privacy Act  Notice (Publication  #609) which I obtained from the
IRS, and which is also published in the IRS Instructions for Form
1040.

     You are  hereby advised  that, as  a sovereign  natural born
free State  Citizen under  the U.S.  Constitution (see  2:1:5), I
explicitly reserve  all my  rights and waive none.  I demand that
you, in your capacities as a public servant and as an individual,
comply with  the law and afford me substantive and procedural due
process at  all times.   In  order for  you to  afford me all due
process in this matter, I now demand the following:
                                
                                
                 DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY ORDERS

     I hereby  demand that  you send me copies of the Delegations
of Authority from the Secretary of the Treasury, all the way down
to your position as District Director, which create and set forth
your full  and complete  authority to  function and  act in  your
present capacity as an employee of the Internal Revenue Service.

     I also  demand to  receive  copies  of  the  Delegations  of
Authority that  have been  handed down to any other case agent(s)
who have  assisted you  in issuing the above mentioned documents.
I also demand the full names of said agents.

     Essentially, I  demand  to  see  the  "chain"  of  authority
delegations above  yours, to  determine if  they are properly set
forth and  to determine  if they have all been properly published
in the  Federal Register  as required by the law (the Act of July
26, 1935,  49 Stat.  500) which created the Federal Register, and
by the Administrative Procedure Act, Section 3.





                        Page O - 5 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Section  3  of  the  Administrative  Procedure  Act  clearly
commands that  the following  types of  agency rules  are  to  be
published in the Federal Register:


     Every agency shall separately state and currently publish in
     the Federal Register:

     (1)  descriptions of  its  central  and  field  organization
          including delegations  by the agency of final authority
          and the  established places  at which,  and the methods
          whereby the  public  may  secure  information  or  make
          submittals or requests;

     (2)  statements of  the general  course and  method by which
          its functions  are channeled  and determined, including
          the nature  and requirements  of all formal or informal
          procedures available  as well as forms and instructions
          as to  the scope and content of all papers, reports, or
          examinations;  and

     (3)  substantive rules  adopted as  authorized  by  law  and
          statements  of   general  policy   or   interpretations
          formulated and  adopted by  the agency  for guidance of
          the public,  but not rules addressed to and served upon
          named persons in accordance with law ....


Both Sections  3 and  9 of  the Act  protect the  public from  an
agency's failure to publish this required information:


     No person  shall in  any manner  be required  to  resort  to
     organization or procedure not so published. ...

     No sanction shall be imposed or substantive rule or order be
     issued except  within jurisdiction  delegated to  the agency
     and as authorized by law.


Also, Section 7 of the Federal Register Act states:


     No document  required under  section 5(a) to be published in
     the Federal  Register shall  be valid  as against any person
     who has not had actual knowledge thereof.


     Mr. District Director, the point here is due process of law.
I demand  full  compliance.    Do  not  send  me  any  copies  of
delegation orders  unless you  can satisfy the entire request.  A
partial response  by you  will evidence  your failure  to satisfy
this request  and will fail to prove your lawful authority by any
means.


                        Page O - 6 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


     It has  come to  my attention that the Office of the Federal
Register  has   issued  a   statement  indicating  that  Treasury
Department Orders 150-10 and 150-37 (regarding taxation) were not
published in  the Federal  Register.   Evidently,  there  are  no
published orders  from the  Secretary of  the Treasury giving the
Commissioner of  Internal  Revenue  the  requisite  authority  to
enforce Title 26, the Internal Revenue Code, within the 50 States
of the  Union.   Furthermore, under  Title 3,  Section  103,  the
President  of   the  United  States,  by  means  of  Presidential
Executive Order,  has not  delegated  authority  to  enforce  the
Internal Revenue Code within the 50 States of the Union.


     Very simply,  Mr. District  Director, you  are  required  to
present proof that the above mentioned orders have been published
in the Federal Register prior to the date of your initial request
for information,  and prior  to the  issuance of  any  unilateral
determinations, by you and/or your case agent(s), of my status as
a "taxpayer" or a "nontaxpayer".


     As proof  that my  request is valid and lawfully on point, I
refer you  to the following statutes and authorities that make it
necessary for the Secretary of the Treasury to delegate authority
to the  Commissioner of Internal Revenue.  First, by authority of
the  Internal  Revenue  Code,  Section  7602,  the  Secretary  is
authorized to  issue a  summons.   This section  must be  read in
conjunction  with   Section  7701:   "Definitions".     Note,  in
particular, definitions  (11)  and  (12)  in  order  to  identify
individuals properly:


     Section 7602.  Examination of books and witnesses.

     (a)  Authority to  Summon, Etc.  --    For  the  purpose  of
     ascertaining the  correctness of any return, making a return
     where none  has been  made, determining the liability of any
     person for  any internal revenue tax or the liability at law
     or in equity of any transferee or fiduciary of any person in
     respect of  any internal revenue tax, or collecting any such
     liability, the Secretary is authorized ....


     Section 7701(11)    Secretary of the Treasury and Secretary.

     (A)  Secretary of  the Treasury.  The term "Secretary of the
     Treasury" means  the Secretary  of the Treasury, personally,
     and shall not include any delegate of his.


     Section 7701(12)    Delegate

     (A)  In General.  The term "or his delegate":



                        Page O - 7 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


     (i)  when used  with  reference  to  the  Secretary  of  the
          Treasury, means any officer, employee, or agency of the
          Treasury Department duly authorized by the Secretary of
          the Treasury  directly, or  indirectly by  one or  more
          redelegations of  authority, to  perform  the  function
          mentioned or described in the context;  and

     (ii) when used  with reference  to any other official of the
          United States, shall be similarly construed.

     (B)  Performance of  Certain Functions  in Guam  or American
          Samoa.    The  term  "delegate,"  in  relation  to  the
          performance of functions in Guam or American Samoa with
          respect to taxes imposed by Chapters 1, 2, and 21, also
          includes  any   officer  or   employee  of   any  other
          department or  agency of  the United  States, or of any
          possession thereof,  duly authorized  by the  Secretary
          (directly, or  indirectly by  one or more redelegations
          of authority) to perform such functions.


Further, Treasury Department Order No. 150-10 can be found in CCH
Paragraph 6585  (unofficial publication).   Section  5  reads  as
follows:

     U.S. Territories  and Insular Possessions.  The Commissioner
     shall, to  the extent  of authority otherwise vested in him,
     provide for the administration of the United States internal
     revenue laws in the U.S. Territories and insular possessions
     and other authorized areas of the world.


     Thus, the  evidence available  to me indicates that the only
authority delegated to the Internal Revenue Service is to enforce
tax treaties  with  foreign  territories,  U.S.  territories  and
possessions, and  Puerto Rico.   To  be consistent  with the law,
Treasury Department Orders, particularly TDO's 150-10 and 150-37,
were deemed  necessary to  be published  in the Federal Register.
Thus, given the absence of published authority delegations within
the 50  States of  the Union, the obvious conclusion  is that the
various Treasury  Department orders  found  in  Internal  Revenue
Manual 1229  have absolutely no legal bearing, force or effect on
sovereign Citizens of these 50 States, such as myself.

     Again, the Secretary of the Treasury delegates his authority
to the  different department heads by Treasury Department Orders,
which require  publication in the Federal Register pursuant to 44
USC 1501  et seq.   Only  when  the  Secretary  of  the  Treasury
properly delegates  authority to  the  Commissioner  of  Internal
Revenue, and  said orders  are  duly  published  in  the  Federal
Register, then and only then does the Commissioner have authority
to  re-delegate   authority  to   his  subordinates   by  issuing
Commissioner's Delegation Orders, which become a part of Internal
Revenue Manual 1229.


                        Page O - 8 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


     All orders  affecting the  rights and obligations of "United
States citizens"  and "United States residents" must be published
in accordance  with the  proper authorities.   Pursuant to 44 USC
1501 et  seq., no  one can  be adversely  affected or bound by an
unpublished order, and anyone may lawfully and safely ignore such
an order  with impunity.  Of course, no one anywhere in the world
can be  affected if the proper and relevant delegation orders are
not duly published.


     Without lawful delegation of authority to issue, among other
things, your  "Request for  Tax Return", to determine correctness
of any return, to make a return where none has been made, to make
and issue determinations of deficiencies for any internal revenue
tax, and/or  to file tax liens and institute levies, Mr. District
Director, you  cannot proceed  further against me in this matter,
particularly  with   your  intent  to  collect  information  and,
ultimately, to collect taxes.


     Mr. District  Director, if you are unable to comply with the
demands in this letter on or before [date exactly 30 days hence],
I will  correctly conclude  under law that you have absolutely no
delegated authority,  that you  are acting under a covert, secret
jurisdiction and,  as such,  that you  are  operating  unlawfully
under color  of law  and cannot  proceed further  in this matter,
period.   Moreover, after  this deadline,  your failure to comply
will mean that you are forever barred by the doctrine of estoppel
by acquiescence  from proceeding  any further  against me in this
regard.
                                
                                
              JURISDICTION IS REQUIRED TO BE PROVEN
                                
     Your delegated authority must include, but not be limited to
Constitutional,  Statutory,   Contract  and/or  Merchant  Law(s),
including treaties  if any.   If  you claim  the jurisdiction  of
statutory law  as your  authority, I  demand that you disclose to
me, in  writing, how  and in  what precise  manner I  became  the
subject and/or the object of said statute.

     If you  claim the  jurisdiction of  contract and/or merchant
law as  your authority,  I demand  that you  disclose to  me,  in
writing, what  contract  or  commercial  agreement  granted  this
jurisdiction to  you, including  but not  limited to  the  title,
date, witnesses  thereto, and all parties thereto, whereby I have
knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily entered into a contract
or commercial  agreement which  provides the  legal basis for any
such alleged  jurisdiction.  In equity, you can be compelled by a
court of  law to  disclose fully,  under oath,  what contract  or
commercial agreement granted this jurisdiction to you.





                        Page O - 9 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Mr.  District  Director,  the  issue  of  whether  I,  as  a
sovereign natural  born free State Citizen under the Constitution
(see 2:1:5),  am liable by statute to file a 1040 Form and to pay
a tax  under some  alleged "blanket  tax law" is secondary to the
issue of jurisdiction, because you must first prove that you have
lawful jurisdiction  over me.   I  am not  aware of  any facts on
record upon  which you could have made a valid determination that
I am  a "taxpayer/subject"  pursuant  to  Title  26  USC  Section
7701(a)(14), or  to any  other laws  cited above,  or that I have
granted you  jurisdiction.  I submit that there are no conclusive
facts nor  any  conclusive  presumptions  on  the  administrative
record which  have conferred  jurisdiction to  you upon myself or
the subject matter.

     Therefore, and  pursuant to  Title 26  USC Section 6110, you
are hereby  required to  furnish me  copies of  the all documents
upon which  you have  based your presumptive determination that I
am a  "taxpayer/subject" who  is in  a particular "taxable class"
that lawfully authorizes you to issue your "Request(s) for a 1040
Tax Return" to me and to institute collection efforts against me.


     There are  numerous cases  that speak  to the  status  of  a
"nontaxpayer" as  opposed to  the status  of a  "taxpayer".   The
following are  just a  few relevant citations (see also Exhibit A
for other relevant cases):


     The term "taxpayer" in this opinion is used in the strict or
     narrow sense  contemplated by  the Internal Revenue Code and
     means a  person who pays, overpays, or is subject to pay his
     own personal  income tax.   (See  Section 7701(a)(14) of the
     Internal Revenue Code of 1954.)  A "nontaxpayer" is a person
     who does not possess the foregoing requisites of a taxpayer.

                       [Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. vs U.S.]
                                    [470 F.2d 585, note 3 at 590]

     
     The revenue  laws are  a code or system in regulation of tax
     assessment and collection.  They relate to taxpayers and not
     to nontaxpayers.

                       [Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. vs U.S.]
                                           [470 F.2d 585, at 589]


     Persons who  are not taxpayers are not within the system and
     can obtain no benefit by following the procedures prescribed
     for taxpayers, such as the filing of claims or refunds.

                       [Economy Plumbing and Heating Co. vs U.S.]
                                           [470 F.2d 585, at 589]



                        Page O - 10 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


     The income  tax is,  therefore, not a tax on income as such.
     It is  an excise  tax with respect to certain activities and
     privileges which  is measured  by reference  to  the  income
     which they  produce.   The income  is not the subject of the
     tax:  it is the basis for determining the amount of the tax.

            [House Congressional Record, March 27, 1943, at 2580]

     It is  a principle  of law that, once challenged, the person
asserting jurisdiction  must prove  that jurisdiction exists as a
matter of  law.   For judicial  support of this principle, see in
particular the following cases:

     Griffin vs Matthews, 310 F.Supp. 341;  423 F.2d 272
     McNutt vs. G.M.,      56 S.Ct. 780;  80 L.Ed 1135
     Basso vs. U.P.L.,    495 F.2d 906
     Thomson vs Gaskiel,   62 S.Ct. 673;  873 L.Ed 111

     To deny me knowledge of jurisdiction and equal protection is
to deny  me due process of law.  Such is a violation by you of 42
USC 1983,  and/or 18  USC 241  and 242, under which section I may
sue you,  should you  willfully deny  me any right to due process
and unlawfully move forward to collect information, to assess, to
collect monies,  and/or to  institute a  lien or levy action upon
any of  my property.   Mr.  District Director, I do hope that you
understand the  extreme liability  and punishment  that you  face
under the law in the event of such violations.


                  NOTICE OF PERSONAL LIABILITY

     As you  are aware,  Mr. District  Director, if  you,  as  an
individual  or  as  a  government  employee/public  servant,  act
outside your  lawful capacity,  with no  delegated authority, you
can be  held personally  liable for each and every violation that
you commit.   However, at this point, you need simply comply with
the law.   The  burden is now rightfully and lawfully upon you to
produce.

     However, 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 a  violation of 26 USC 7214(a)(1),
(3), (6), and (7), for starters.

     There could  be charges  filed against  you for unauthorized
and unlawful  disclosure under  the Internal Revenue Code (26 USC
6103) as  well for your failure to provide due process.  See, for
example, Husby  vs United  States, 672 F. Supp. 442, and Rorex vs
Traynor, 771  F.2d 383.   Title 26 USC, Section 7431(a)(1) states
as follows:


                        Page O - 11 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Disclosure by Employee of the United States.  If any officer
     or employee  of the United States knowingly, or by reason of
     negligence, discloses  any return or return information with
     respect to  a taxpayer  in violation  of  any  provision  of
     section 6103,  such taxpayer  may bring  a civil  action for
     damages against the United States in a district court of the
     United States.


Title 26 USC, Section 7431(c) provides for damages:


     Damages.  In any action brought under subsection (a), upon a
     finding of  liability on  the part  of  the  defendant,  the
     defendant shall  be liable  to the  plaintiff in  an  amount
     equal to the sum of ---

     (1)  the greater of --

          (A)  $1,000.00 for  each act of unauthorized disclosure
               of a  return or return information with respect to
               which such defendant is found liable, or

          (B)  the sum of --

               (i)  the actual damages sustained by the plaintiff
                    as a  result of such unauthorized disclosure,
                    plus

               (ii) in the  case of  a willful  disclosure  or  a
                    disclosure  which  is  the  result  of  gross
                    negligence, punitive damages, plus

     (2)  the costs of the action.


A lawsuit  for unlawful  disclosure against you personally can be
extremely damaging and costly to you and your agency, because the
$1,000 fine  can be  multiplied  a  thousand-fold  under  certain
conditions.

     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
delegated authority.

     Please note  well the  ruling in  the following  court case,
particularly  as  it  affects  agents  who  are  unaware  of  the
limitations upon their authority:


                        Page O - 12 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


     Whatever the  form in which the 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 Ins. Corp. vs Merrill, 332 U.S. 380]


                    LEGAL ADVICE RELIED UPON

     During the  past years,  I have  conducted diligent research
and have  received and  relied upon legal advice from independent
tax professionals who all advised me in writing that the law does
not make me liable to file income tax returns, no matter how much
money I  make.   Some of  my counsel  also  advised  me  of  your
agency's violations  with regard to Delegations of Authority, and
have pointed  out and  proven many  other  serious  problems  and
violations.   Thus, in  a prudent  sense, I  have every reason to
rely  fully  on  the  legal  advice  I  have  received  from  tax
professionals.

     Also, Article  1, Section  10  of  the  U.  S.  Constitution
secures my right to contract.  Obviously, I enjoy the unalienable
right to free association through contract.  My relationship with
all those  with whom I choose to associate is by private contract
which cannot  be impaired  by you  or anyone else.  "Unalienable"
rights are  rights that  cannot  be  surrendered  or  transferred
without my consent.  (See Exhibit A for relevant court cases.)
                                
                                
                 IRS PRIVACY ACT NOTICE SUPPORTS
                       MY NON-FILER STATUS

     Furthermore, the  IRS Privacy  Act Notice  #609  which  your
agency sent to me supports my legal position that I am not liable
for sending  you information  on a  Form 1040.   I  am advised by
professionals that  your Notice  is deceptively  written to trick
all individuals  into  believing  that  they  are  "liable",  and
therefore it  is a  shameful and  vicious fraud.   Careful  legal
analysis has  brought forth the real explanation and proof.  Your
Notice first  refers to  Title 26 USC, Section 6001, which states
in part:


     Whenever in  the judgement of the Secretary it is necessary,
     he may require any person, by notice served upon such person
     or  by  regulations,  to  make  such  returns,  render  such
     statements, or  keep such  records, as  the Secretary  deems
     sufficient to  show whether or not such person is liable for
     tax under this title.
                                                 [emphasis added]


                        Page O - 13 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


Your Notice 609 continues to Section 6011, which states in part:

     
     When required by regulations prescribed by the Secretary any
     person made  liable for  any tax  imposed by  this title, or
     with respect  to the collection thereof, shall make a return
     or  statement   according  to   the  forms  and  regulations
     prescribed by the Secretary.
                                                 [emphasis added]

     I am advised that to be "liable" for a tax means that one is
responsible to  provide information relative to such taxes on the
appropriate "information  collection request"  form.   Neither of
the above Code sections states that all individuals are liable to
make a  return, and no specific forms are mentioned either.  This
defect is in sharp contrast to other types of taxes enumerated in
the Code,  all of  which clearly have a Code section specifically
describing who is liable to fill out the return, to submit it and
to pay  any tax  that is owed.  In this latter regard, the law is
crystal clear  to me;  but with regard to "income" taxes, the law
and its regulations are anything but crystal clear.

     I must  first be  an individual  who is subject to, and made
liable for  a particular type of tax under Title 26, the Internal
Revenue Code,  i.e. income  tax.   Since I am neither subject to,
nor liable  for, any particular type of tax under Title 26, there
is absolutely  no requirement  to comply  with your  request  for
information, for  the filing  of a Form 1040, or even for payment
of any income tax.

     Finally, my  tax professionals  all advise  me that  Section
6012 of  your Privacy  Act Notice  does not apply to me;  it only
applies to  those who  are made  liable or  subject to, either by
statute or  by having volunteered to be liable for, the filing of
your tax form.

     However, notwithstanding  the facts  that Sections  6001 and
6011 of  your Privacy  Act Notice  do not  make me liable for the
tax, and  fail to even cross-reference a Code section in Subtitle
A that would make me liable to file, as a purely voluntary act on
my part and to prove my good faith in resolving this matter, here
is my "statement":

     In good  faith, I  have determined  from written,  reliable,
     legal advice  from tax  professionals and  further  research
     into the  law, that I am not liable or subject to or for any
     tax under  Title 26, and nothing I receive is subject to tax
     under Subtitle  A.   I am  not a  "taxpayer" as  defined  in
     Section 7701(a)(14), and as defined in Section 1313(b).  Nor
     am I  that "person"  as defined  in Section 7343.  And, I am
     not engaged  in any revenue taxable activity under Title 26,
     and I  have no  valid contracts  with your agency, direct or
     quasi.   Thus, you  have no  lawful jurisdiction  to proceed
     further in this matter.


                        Page O - 14 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


     I have  unalienable, God-given rights which I will not waive
     at any  time, and  you  are  prohibited  from  violating  my
     absolute  right  to  due  process  by  instituting  unlawful
     assessments, levies  or seizures.  Essentially, your "income
     tax" and  Title  26  simply  do  not  apply  to  me,  as  an
     individual with free sovereign natural born Citizen status.


     In addition,  your Privacy Act Notice constitutes a "Miranda
Warning" to  me, because  it states  that "the information may be
given to the Department of Justice and to other federal agencies,
as provided  by  law."    The  5th  Amendment  protects  me  from
revealing any  and all  information which  you may  give  to  the
Justice Department  and  other  federal  agencies,  because  this
amendment provides  that NO  PERSON SHALL  BE COMPELLED  TO BE  A
WITNESS AGAINST  HIMSELF.   Please be  advised that this right of
mine is  not negotiable  under any  circumstances.   I have never
waived any of my rights knowingly, intentionally, or voluntarily.
I have  never committed  any knowingly intelligent acts which, to
my knowledge,  could or  would be  construed as waiving any of my
rights.

     Again,  Mr.   District  Director,  you  have  asked  me  for
information, including  a 1040  Income Tax Return, and it appears
impossible for  me to give you any information whatsoever without
waiving one  or more  of my  God-given unalienable  rights, which
rights are  explicitly guaranteed  by the  Constitution  for  the
United States  of America.   In  further support  of my  right to
claim the  protection of  the 5th Amendment, I refer specifically
to your  own IRS  Special Agent's  Handbook,  Section  342.11(2),
which states as follows:


     The  right  to  refuse  to  answer  incriminating  questions
     applies not  only to  court trials,  but  to  all  kinds  of
     criminal  or  civil  proceedings,  including  administrative
     investigations.
                           [George Smith vs U.S., 337 S.Ct. 1000]
                             [U.S. vs Harold Gross, 276 F.2d 816]
                                        [Councilman vs Hitchcock]
                                          [McCarthy vs Arndstein]

     Further, the  4th Amendment right is likewise relevant here,
because it follows that a violation of the 5th Amendment, and any
forcible extraction  of information  or property against my will,
constitute an  illegal search and seizure.  There is no "probable
cause", as  required by  the 4th  Amendment, because jurisdiction
has not been proven.


     The famous  case of  Miranda vs Arizona sums up the relevant
strength of my rights as a Sovereign State Citizen, as follows:
     



                        Page O - 15 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there
     can be  no rule  making or  legislation which would abrogate
     them.


     You also  compound your fraud upon the inhabitants of the 50
States of  the Union  by implying  that all  individuals (without
exception) are  required to  file a  tax return,  when it is well
settled that  federal income  taxes are  completely  and  totally
voluntary for  nonresident aliens who live and work outside areas
of  exclusive  federal  legislative  jurisdiction,  unless  their
income derives  from a  source that is inside a federal area (see
authorities at  1:8:17 and  4:3:2 in  the U.S.  Constitution  and
Treasury Decision 2313).

     Your ADP  and IDRS  document 6209 classifies the W-2 and W-4
in a number five (#5) tax class.  This indicates that the form is
only for  a gift  tax.   This also  confirms that  the tax  is  a
voluntary tax;   when  individuals fill out these forms, they are
voluntarily giving a gift.  There is also a problem with your W-4
in that  there must  first be  a tax  imposed upon  an individual
before that  individual can  incur a  tax liability.    For  most
individuals, no section of the Code can be found which imposes an
income tax  on them  and therefore  makes them liable, hence they
"incurred no liability for income tax imposed under subtitle A of
the Code ...."

     Another problem  with the W-4 form is that it does not allow
you  to  claim  exemptions,  but  only  allowances.    Therefore,
whenever you  attempt to  claim exemptions, you are automatically
falsifying the  form.   Yet another  problem with the W-4 form is
its title.   It  does not purport to be an Employee's Withholding
Exemption  Certificate.     It   purports  to  be  an  Employee's
Withholding Allowance Certificate.


     The end  result of  what the  Internal Revenue  Service  has
accomplished is  the promulgation of a plethora of regulations to
govern  a   form  which   simply  does  not  exist  (see  26  CFR
31.3402(f)(1)-1(e)(2), 3402(n), 31.3402(f)(5)-1(b)(1).)


     In summary,  for a  Sovereign State  Citizen such as myself,
providing information  and proceeding  to pay taxes pursuant to a
1040 form is entirely voluntary.  The voluntary nature of the tax
system is  clearly proven  by the following statement by the U.S.
Supreme Court:


     Our system  of taxation is based on voluntary assessment and
     payment, not upon distraint.

                                    [U.S. vs Flora, 362 U.S. 176]
                                                 [emphasis added]


                        Page O - 16 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


                           CONCLUSIONS

     The above  jurisdictional challenge  and constructive notice
are made  in good  faith.   My sincere  intent is  to uphold  the
Supreme Law  of the Land, the U.S. Constitution, and all relevant
laws that  are consistent  with the  Constitution, and  to simply
resolve this  matter quickly  by getting  to the truth of the law
and the  facts as  outlined above  for the  record.  And you, Mr.
District Director, in your capacity as a public servant and as an
individual as  well, also  have a  clear obligation to uphold the
United States Constitution and the relevant laws as stated above.
I demand  that you  follow all  the rules  and afford  me all due
process.   In the  case of  Robinson vs  U.S., 920 F.2d 1157, the
Appellate Court  stated that  this is  an IRS  game that is being
played and, therefore, the IRS must play according to the rules:

     The procedural  provisions of  the Code  appear  to  be  the
     creation of  a scholastic,  but whimsical mind.  In general,
     however, the  Courts take  them literally;  the game must be
     played according  to the  rules.   In the  factual situation
     here, the IRS broke the rules.

                [Johnson, An Inquiry into the Assessment Process]
                                 [35 Tax L. Rev. 285, 286 (1980)]

     The burden  of proof  is now entirely upon you, Mr. District
Director.   As time  is of the essence, do not ignore this notice
and demand.   In  regard to your decision to reply or not, please
bear in mind the following quote from the U.S. Court of Appeals:

     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.    Our  revenue
     system is based upon the good faith of the taxpayers and the
     taxpayers should  be able to expect the same from government
     in its  enforcement and collection activities....  This sort
     of deception  will not  be tolerated  and  if  this  is  the
     "routine" it should be corrected immediately.

       [U. S. vs Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), emphasis added]
            [quoting U.S. vs Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]
                                                                 
     Silence is  a species of conduct, and constitutes an implied
     representation of  the existence  of the  state of  facts in
     question, and  the estoppel  is  accordingly  a  species  of
     estoppel by misrepresentation.  [cite omitted]  When silence
     is of  such a character and under such circumstances that it
     would become  a fraud  upon the  other party  to permit  the
     party who  has kept  silent to  deny what  his  silence  has
     induced the  other to  believe and act upon, it will operate
     as an estoppel.

             [Carmine vs Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906), emphasis added]


                        Page O - 17 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


     Obviously, Mr.  District Director,  your response must be in
writing.   To be sure that I receive it, I require you to send it
via  either   Certified  or   Registered  Mail,   return  receipt
requested.   There is  abundant case  law  that  sets  forth  the
following axiom of law:


     When jurisdiction  is challenged  in  writing,  it  must  be
     answered in writing.
                                                 [emphasis added]

     I hereby  demand that  you  comply  with  this  constructive
notice and demand, and that you take corrective actions by simply
curtailing any  and all "information collection actions" that you
currently have  in process  relative to me.  Your failure to take
this action  will prove  bad faith,  that is, a willful intent on
your part to violate the law.


     You have  hereby  been  given  my  constructive  notice  and
demands under  law.   You now  have full personal knowledge of my
lawful  status  as  a  Sovereign  nontaxpayer.    Therefore,  Mr.
District Director,  I expect  to receive your written response on
or before  [date exactly  30 days  hence] to resolve and formally
terminate this  case and to permanently close my file for lack of
agency jurisdiction and for rampant violations of the law.


     For your  information, I am now obliged to forward copies of
this letter,  with  substantial  documentation,  including  legal
opinions, to  higher officials  within your agency, including the
Secretary of  the  Treasury  and  the  Commissioner  of  Internal
Revenue, as  well as  my Representatives in the House and Senate.
I will  do this  so as to exhaust all my administrative remedies.
Over the  years, our  community has become very interested in the
subject of  IRS abuses  and violations of due process, and I will
not hesitate  to print  cogent letters about these IRS abuses and
violations of  due process  in  any  and  all  publication  media
available to me.


     Lastly, as mentioned above, I have legal opinions which have
advised me  that I  am not  liable or  subject to,  or  for,  the
"income tax",  and none  of your  Notices, including  Notice 557,
applies to  me.   Again, Notice 557 applies only to those who are
subject to,  or liable for, the tax.  In order to "reduce paper",
I am not sending you copies of these legal opinions at this time,
since I  believe it  is unnecessary  to do  so.   As I  mentioned
above, this  is a  two-part matter.   You  must first satisfy the
issues of jurisdiction and delegation of authority.


     Thank you  very much  for  your  prompt  attention  to  this
important matter.


                        Page O - 18 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


Sincerely yours,




/s/ John Q. Doe


enclosures:    copy of IRS letter dated __/__/__
          
attachment:    Exhibit A: Supreme Court decisions




                         Acknowledgement


CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC       )
                                )   Subscribed, Sworn and Sealed
MARIN COUNTY                    )

     On this  ______ day of ______________________________, 1992,
John Q.  Doe 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,  and  not  to  grant
jurisdiction to any government agency.


                            _____________________________________
                            Notary Public






















                        Page O - 19 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


                            Exhibit A
                                
                 Decisions of the Supreme Court
                      of the United States
                                
                                
"There is  a clear distinction in this particular case between an
individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to
refuse to  submit its  books and papers for an examination at the
suit  of   the  State.     The  individual  may  stand  upon  his
constitutional right  as a  citizen.   He is entitled to carry on
his private  business in  his own  way.  His power to contract is
unlimited.   He owes no such duty to the State, since he receives
nothing  therefrom,   beyond  the  protection  of  his  life  and
property.   His rights are such as existed by the law of the land
long antecedent to the organization of the State, and can only be
taken from  him by due process of law, and in accordance with the
Constitution.   Among  his  rights  are  refusal  to  incriminate
himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest
or seizure except under a warrant of law.  He owes nothing to the
public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights."

                                    [Hale vs Henkel, 201 U.S. 43]


"The individual,  unlike the corporation, cannot be taxed for the
mere privilege  of existing.   The  corporation is  an artificial
entity which  owes its existence and charter powers to the state;
but, the individual's rights to live and own property are natural
rights for the enjoyment of which an excise cannot be imposed."

                         [Redfield vs Fisher, 292 P. 813, at 819]


"Included in  the right  of personal  liberty and  the  right  of
private property  -- partaking  of the  nature of  each -- is the
right to  make contracts  for the acquisition of property.  Chief
among such  contracts is  that of  personal employment,  by which
labor and  other services  are exchanged for money or other forms
of property."
                           [Coppage vs Kansas, 236 U.S. 1, at 14]


"The common  business and  callings of  life, the ordinary trades
and pursuits,  which are  innocuous in themselves, and which have
been followed  in all  communities from  time  immemorial,  must,
therefore, be  free in  this country  to all  alike upon the same
conditions.  The right to pursue them, without let nor hindrance,
except that which is applied to all persons of the same age, sex,
and condition,  is a  distinguishing privilege of citizens of the
United States,  and an  essential element  of that  freedom which
they claim as their birthright."

                        [Butchers Union Co. vs Crescent City Co.]


                        Page O - 20 of 22

                                                       Appendix O


NOTE:    The  above  Supreme  Court  decisions  have  never  been
overturned.   Further, Kenneth  W. Starr,  Solicitor General,  on
February 1,  1990, made  the following statement in a letter to a
United States Senator:

     It is  well established  that the  decisions of  the  United
     States Supreme Court interpreting federal law are binding on
     lower courts, both state and federal, until such time as the
     Supreme Court  overrules its  decision, or federal statutory
     provision in question is amended or repealed.

                      [See generally Cooper vs Aaron, 358 U.S. 1]












































                        Page O - 21 of 22

                                                The Federal Zone:


                                                  Reader's Notes:























































                        Page O - 22 of 22
