Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        April 12, 1983

Mr. Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic

Subject:  Collection Summons Form 6638 (Rev. 4-89)

Dear Mr. Extort:

During the  morning of  April 9,  1983 A.D., in the lobby of your
offices at  515 Northgate  Drive, Suite  200,  I  witnessed  your
personal interactions  with two friends of mine:  Mr. Mick Mofatt
and Mr.  Mike Tarino.   Immediately  after your private interview
with Mr. Tarino, I also witnessed his audio tape recording of the
interview which  you conducted with Mr. Tarino and his witness at
that interview,  Major Robert  M. Store,  Jr., U.S. Army Reserve.
Both Mr.  Tarino and Major Store confirmed to me the authenticity
of  the   tape  recording   which  they  played  for  my  benefit
immediately after  that interview.   On  the basis of this direct
personal experience,  and on the basis of the facts and law which
are  discussed   in  detail   in  this   letter  and  all  listed
attachments, I am obligated by conscience to inform you that your
words and  actions to  date indicate to me that you are operating
completely outside of numerous American laws never repealed.

So that  you  will  have  absolutely  no  doubts  about  my  real
motivations for  writing this  letter to  you and  for personally
serving all of the attached documents on you, I begin this letter
by citing  a California  Court case which was decided in the year
of my  birth as  a Sovereign  natural born Free Citizen of one of
the United  States of  America.  The following quotation is taken
from headnote #2 of Steiner v. Darby:

     State of  California --  Sovereignty and  General Powers. --
     The people  of the  state not only have the right to protect
     themselves and  their chosen  form of government from attack
     from all  sources, but it is their duty to do so, since they
     have guaranteed  to the  people  of  the  United  States  "a
     Republican Form  of Government" in this state (U. S. Const.,
     art. IV, Section 4)

           [Steiner v. Darby, 88 C.A.2d 481; 199 P.2d 429 (1948)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 1 of 116


Your presentment,  "Collection Summons Form 6638 (Rev. 4-89)", is
hereby voided  and returned to you because I believe that you are
in error  for presenting  this form to me.  I am not a "taxpayer"
as that  term is defined in the Internal Revenue Code (IRC).  The
attached documents  contain numerous  repetitions of  this  fact,
which has  never been  rebutted by  any  agents  of  the  federal
government, nor  by any  agents of  the Internal Revenue Service.
If I  am wrong,  then please  explain immediately to me so that I
may correct my interpretations of the law, which are evidenced by
all the attached documents.  Please also note well that:

     Whatever the  form in  which  Government  functions,  anyone
     entering into  an arrangement  with the Government takes the
     risk of  having accurately  ascertained that he who purports
     to act  for the  Government stays  within the  bounds of his
     authority ...  and this is so even though as here, the agent
     himself may  have been  unaware of  the limitations upon his
     authority.
                              [Federal Crop Insurance v. Merrill]
                       [332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947), emphasis added]


You are  hereby directed  to take specific notice that all agents
of the  United States are precluded from making "Political Status
Determinations"  in  federal  income  tax  matters.  Accordingly,
before any  agent of  the United States can act upon the declared
status of John E. Trumane, Sui Juris,

     (1)  as that  of a  "nonresident alien"  with respect to the
          Corporate "United States",

     (2)  such agent  is directed  to take Judicial Notice of the
          court case  St. Louis  Park Medical  Center v. Lethert,
          286 F. Supp. 271, and

     (3)  the specific exclusion at 28 U.S.C. Section 2201, and

     (4)  "U.S. citizenship is a political status," Ex Parte (Ng)
          Fung Sing, D.C.Wash. 6 F.2d 670 [emphasis added].


All IRS  agents and  U.S. Courts  are thus  barred from  making a
"Political Status  Determination" with  regard to  federal income
taxes.  Consequently, if IRS agents and federal courts are barred
from declaring  John E.  Trumane a  "taxpayer", then both the IRS
and federal  courts lack  the  requisite  jurisdiction,  and  the
declared and  published political  status of John E. Trumane must
stand as stated (see all attachments to this letter).

If the  IRS and  its agents  are unable  to prove  that  John  E.
Trumane, Sui  Juris, actually  volunteered to become a "taxpayer"
knowingly and  intentionally, with  sufficient awareness  of  the
relevant circumstances  and likely  consequences, then  his sworn
statements that  he did  not volunteer,  and that  he was  a non-
immigrant "nonresident  alien"  with  respect  to  the  corporate
"United States", also must stand.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 2 of 116


To repeat  once again, for the record, during calendar years 1980
and 1981  Anno Domini,  John E. Trumane did not receive any gains
or profits which derived from "sources within the United States",
and he  was not  effectively connected  with any  "U.S. trade  or
business", as  those terms  are defined  by the  Internal Revenue
Code.


Specific Demands

I hereby make the following specific demands that you immediately
disclose:

     (a)  the judicial determination, or law, which declares that
          I am a "taxpayer" as defined at IRC 7701(a)(14);

     (b)  the judicial  determination that  gave  you  authority,
          against my will and over my objections, to regulate and
          control my personal life, liberty and property;

     (c)  the specific kind of tax you are seeking to impose;

     (d)  the statute that imposes this obligation and compels me
          to perform;

     (e)  the regulation that puts this code into effect (CFR);

     (f)  the section or part of the regulation in (e) above;

     (g)  the form  number(s) which  you claim  I am  required to
          complete and file;

     (h)  the authorized  OMB control  number(s)  and  expiration
          date(s) of such Form(s);

     (i)  copies of  all genuine  documents  which  evidence  the
          specific contract, agreement, or other obligation which
          created a taxable franchise or status in me;

     (j)  the specific  fundamental Rights which you presume that
          I would  waive by  obeying  your  so-called  Collection
          Summons, or, as an alternative to (j),

     (k)  a written  guarantee  that  your  so-called  Collection
          Summons can  be  obeyed  without  waiving  any  Rights,
          including but not limited to my Lawful immunity against
          self-incrimination (see  the 5th  Amendment), my Lawful
          immunity against  involuntary servitude  (see the  13th
          Amendment), and my Lawful immunity against direct taxes
          which are  not apportioned  (see 1:9:4 and 1:2:3 in the
          Constitution  for  the  United  States  of  America  as
          lawfully amended, the supreme Law of the Land per 6:2).


Your Silence is Fraud

Please take specific notice of the following court authority:

     Silence can  only be  equated with  fraud where  there is  a
     legal or  moral duty  to speak  or  where  an  inquiry  left
     unanswered would be intentionally misleading. ...  We cannot
     condone this shocking conduct by the IRS.

       [U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977), emphasis added]
            [quoting U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 3 of 116


I find  it necessary to stress the Prudden and Tweel doctrine, as
quoted immediately  above, because  you and  your agency  to date
have failed  to  provide  satisfactory  responses  to  my  lawful
demands for the production of documents.  Therefore, according to
the 9th  Circuit Court  of Appeals,  you must  answer and produce
these documents  for me.  If, however, you cannot produce them by
5:00 p.m.  on May  3, 1983,  I shall  consider that the so-called
Collection Summons  that you  issued  without  my  permission  is
cancelled, that there will be an estoppel by acquiescence in this
matter, and that no further action is required of me.


"United States" is Bankrupt

It is  also essential  that you understand your own tenuous legal
position in  light of  the recent  official announcement that the
United States  is bankrupt.   During a televised interview on the
evening of  March 17,  1993, Congressman  James A. Traficant from
Ohio officially  admitted that  the United States is now bankrupt
and that  the Congress are now the trustees in receivership.  His
statements during this televised interview have been confirmed by
published  repetition   of  this   announcement  in   the   House
Congressional Record, dated March 17, 1993, Vol. 139, No. 33.

Acting in their corporate capacities, it is entirely unlawful for
the corporate  United States  or any  of it  agencies, assigns or
instrumentalities  to  compel  me  to  sign  a  foreign  bill  of
exchange, or to compel my specific performance to any undisclosed
third-party debt  or obligation,  when one  party to that bill of
exchange is  insolvent and, in particular, when an agency of that
party has  failed to  disclose fully to me its bankrupt condition
and the  implications of  that bankrupt  condition for any future
contracts with it which I may be invited or compelled to enter.

This bankruptcy  constitutes a  relevant and  material fact which
must be  fully disclosed  by you and has not been fully disclosed
by you.   As  an agent of the Internal Revenue Service, acting in
its corporate  capacity, you  have waived  any and  all sovereign
immunity in  your dealings with me.  Your failure to disclose the
bankruptcy of  the "United  States" raises very serious questions
about your  true motives  in my case and constitutes, at the very
least, proof of your bad faith in the instant matter.  To repeat,
your silence can and must be equated fraud (see Prudden and Tweel
authorities supra).


Itemized Rebuttals

After carefully  studying the relevant statutes, regulations, and
court decisions,  and after  carefully studying  the Constitution
for the United States of America, which is the supreme law of the
land, I  find it  necessary to  itemize  formally  the  following
reasons why your Form 6638 is entirely invalid and not applicable
to me.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 4 of 116


Denial of Liability

I specifically  deny that  I owe anything to the Internal Revenue
Service or  to the United States or any of its agencies, assigns,
or instrumentalities.


Personal Status

Attached please  find true  and correct  copies of affidavits and
other documents  which have  already been  served on the lists of
recipients shown  in these  documents. According  to  the  lawful
declarations of  status found  in these documents, I have already
established my  lawful status  as a California State Citizen who,
as such,  is a  non-immigrant "nonresident alien" with respect to
the "United  States" as those terms are defined in the IRC and in
26 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR).

I am  not a  "citizen of the United States", nor am I a "resident
of the  United States", as those terms are defined in the IRC and
in 26  CFR.   In particular,  see the  pivotal U.S. Supreme Court
case of  Brushaber v. Union Pacific Railroad Company, 240 U.S. 1,
and the  resulting Treasury  Decision 2313,  approved  March  30,
1916, which together prove conclusively that Union State Citizens
are properly  and legally  identified as "nonresident aliens" for
purposes of the Internal Revenue Code.  Treasury Decision 2313 is
particularly relevant  because the  Department  of  the  Treasury
determined that  New York  State Citizen Frank R. Brushaber was a
"nonresident alien" with respect to the "United States", as those
terms are currently defined in the IRC and its regulations.

As a  non-immigrant  "nonresident  alien"  with  respect  to  the
"United States"  during the  calendar years  1980 and 1981, I was
therefore an  alien and  a stranger  with respect to the internal
revenue laws,  I was not a resident (i.e. a "nonresident") of the
state of the forum, and I had zero "gross income" as that term is
defined at IRC 872(a).


Alcohol, Tobacco and Firearms

As you  must already  know, a valid Collection Summons must issue
pursuant to  IRC 7602,  which is  implemented by  the regulations
promulgated in  27 CFR  (see Supplemental  CFR Index  and Finding
Aids).  This implementation is promulgated as 27 CFR Part 70, and
applies to  IRC 7601  thru and  including 7606.   Section 7602 is
also implemented  by 27 CFR Parts 170 and 296.  These sections of
the CFR  deal exclusively  with excise taxes on alcohol, tobacco,
and firearms.   I  have never  been implicated or involved in any
way in any of these revenue-taxable activities.

See also  Department of  Treasury Order  No. 120-01, dated Jun 6,
1972, which  states that the Director shall perform the function,
exercise the powers, and carry out the duties of the Secretary in
the administration and enforcement of the following provisions of
law:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 5 of 116


(a)  Chapters 51, 52, and 53 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954
     and   Sections 7652  and 7653  of such  Code insofar as they
     relate  to   the  commodities  subject  to  tax  under  such
     chapters;

(b)  Chapters 61  to 80,  inclusive, of the Internal Revenue Code
     of 1954,  insofar as  they relate to activities administered
     and enforced with respect to Chapters 51, 52, and 53.


There are  no facts in the administrative record which constitute
evidence that I was dealing in alcohol, tobacco, and/or firearms.
You did  not and  could not issue a valid Collection Summons Form
6638 because  this form  is listed  in  IRS  Publication  676  as
strictly a third-party summons for activities related to alcohol,
tobacco and  firearms.   You did  not and could not issue a valid
Collection Summons because it must be properly attested according
to 28  U.S.C. 1733(b),  Rule 44  of the  Federal Rules  of  Civil
Procedure, because  it must be signed under penalties of perjury,
because the  underlying  foundational  basis  did  not  exist  to
establish me as being subject to, liable for, or an object within
the scope  of your  administrative agency (see 1 Am Jur 2d, Abuse
of Process, Section 3).

IRS operations manual MT-19-900 confirms the fact that, if I were
dealing in  alcohol, tobacco and/or firearms, I would be required
to make an appearance, but I would be under no obligation to give
any testimony  that might  incriminate me,  contrary to  the  5th
Amendment to  the U.S.  Constitution.  (See, e.g., MT 9900-26, 1-
29-75, Sections 242.12(1) and (2).)  I am not required to appear.

Last but  not least, no Notice 464 has been sent to me commanding
me, as  required by  Treasury Delegation  Order #24 (found in MT-
1229-65, the  handbook of  delegation orders),  to keep books and
records of  any kind  prior to, nor during, the calendar years in
question (1980 and 1981 Anno Domini).


Delegation of Authority

The  information   available  to   me  indicates   that  Treasury
Delegation Orders  #4, #150-10,  and #150-37 were never published
in the  Federal  Register  as  required  by  federal  law.    The
Commissioner's  Delegation   Order  #4  is  often  cited  as  the
authority to  issue a  Collection Summons.   Until and unless you
can demonstrate  conclusively to  me that  such delegation orders
have been  properly published  in  the  Federal  Register,  I  am
entitled  to   the  conclusive  presumption  that  you  lack  the
prerequisite delegation(s)  of authority  to issue  a  Collection
Summons in the first place.  If a Collection Summons is served in
the absence  of the  required delegations  of  authority,  it  is
completely lacking  in authority  and can  be ignored  with total
impunity.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 6 of 116


Furthermore, former  Senator Lloyd Bentsen has recently attempted
to occupy  the civil  office of  Secretary  of  the  Treasury  in
blatant violation  of Article  1, Section  6,  Clause  2  in  the
Constitution for  the United  States of  America.  Mr. Bentsen is
currently barred  by this  provision from lawfully occupying that
office until  the expiration  of his  most recent  term  as  U.S.
Senator, which  expiration will occur in January of 1995, because
he was  a member  of the  U.S. Senate  when that  body  voted  to
increase the  emoluments for the civil office which he now claims
to occupy.

As such,  Mr. Lloyd  Bentsen is not lawfully occupying the office
of Secretary  of the  Treasury and  cannot exercise  any  of  the
authorities which  are bestowed  upon that office by federal law.
Accordingly,  he   can  neither   delegate  nor  re-delegate  any
authorities which  he does  not possess.   Since  he lacks any of
these authorities,  all his  acts are  currently being  committed
under color  of law  and are, therefore, null and void ab initio,
including any and all delegations and re-delegations of authority
which he may attempt to enact.

This means  that you cannot receive any delegations of authority,
either direct  or indirectly, from the Secretary of the Treasury,
because there  is no  one who  is lawfully  occupying that  civil
office under  authority of the United States at the present time.
Accordingly, there  is a  break in the chain of command above you
and, short of impeachment, there is no lawful way for Congress to
cure this problem by resolution or by statute because:

     Congress ...  cannot by  legislation alter the Constitution,
     from which  alone it  derives its  power to  legislate,  and
     within whose  limitations alone  that power  can be lawfully
     exercised.
                               [Eisner v. Macomber, 252 U.S. 189]


                       CONSPICUOUS NOTICE:

This break  in the  lawful chain of authority also means that you
have absolutely no authority to execute a substitute return on my
behalf.


Verification of Documents

You are  hereby placed on actual notice that the Internal Revenue
Code requires that all statements and other documents required to
be made  under any  provision of  the internal  revenue  laws  or
regulations  shall   contain,  or   be  verified  by,  a  written
declaration that  they were  made under  the penalties of perjury
(see IRC  6065).   Your Collection Summons was invalid because it
failed  to   exhibit  an  original  signature  signed  under  the
penalties of perjury.  Since it lacked the required verification,
it was invalid and can be ignored by me with impunity.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 7 of 116


OMB Requirements Ignored

Since the  Collection Summons  Form  6638  (Rev.  4-89)  requests
information, and since there is no ongoing court action involving
a presumed  valid assessment,  therefore it  does  not  meet  the
"summons exclusion" under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and
must have  a properly  issued OMB  Control Number  and Expiration
Date.   Lacking a  valid OMB  control number and expiration date,
your Collection  Summons is,  by definition,  a "bootleg request"
which can  be ignored  by me with impunity.  Why were a valid OMB
control number  and expiration date not posted on your Collection
Summons, pursuant  to the  Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980 and as
required by IR Manual 35(44)1.6?


Notice of Personal Liability

Any further  attempts by  you to  assert  the  validity  of  your
Collection Summons  Form 6638  in the  face of  contrary evidence
will be  noted and  can be  used as  prima facie evidence of your
willingness to  violate and  otherwise contravene  my unalienable
rights and  my Constitutionally  secured rights  as  a  Sovereign
American.   These Rights  include, but  are not limited to, those
which are  enumerated  in  my  Affidavits  and  other  documents,
including this  letter (see  9th and  10th Amendments in the U.S.
Constitution).

You are  hereby warned  that you  can and will be held personally
liable  for  any  future  attempts  to  violate  my  fundamental,
unalienable Rights  by acts  on your part which attempt to compel
my specific  performance to  any third-party  debt or  obligation
created through  the unlawful  assertion of an invalid Collection
Summons or an improperly executed substitute return.  Pursuant to
the Uniform  Commercial Code,  Section 1-203,  you  are  under  a
general obligation to demonstrate good faith in all your dealings
with  me.    Your  failure  to  obey  all  applicable  rules  and
regulations constitutes bad faith, which is synonymous with fraud
(see "bad  faith" as  defined in  Black's Law  Dictionary,  Sixth
Edition).  As an agent of the federal government, you are under a
legal obligation  to recognize that:  "Constructive fraud as well
as  actual   fraud  may  be  the  basis  of  cancellation  of  an
instrument," El  Paso Natural Gas Co. v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605
Pacific 2d 240 (1979).  Your ignorance of the law is no excuse in
this matter.

Should you continue to circumvent the law as cited above, it will
be necessary  for me to sue you for violating IRC 7214  and/or 18
U.S.C. Section  241 and  242.   Federal courts  have consistently
held that  IRS personnel lose their immunity from suits when they
act without  authority (see  Bothe v.  Fluor Engineers, 713 F.2d.
1405  (1983)).    If  you  continue  to  induce,  by  fraud,  the
production of  books and  records, I will find it necessary to do
the following:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 8 of 116


     (1)  report you to the Justice Department, as required by 26
          U.S.C. 7214,  for perjury  and  falsifying  instruments
          under 18  U.S.C. Sections  2, 1001, 1002, and 26 U.S.C.
          Sections 7214(1), (2), and (7);

     (2)  petition a  court to  impose sanctions  against you  as
          appropriate to  reimburse me  for any  tort or trespass
          upon  me,   for  losses   resulting  from  unauthorized
          disclosures which  damage my reputation, and for mental
          anguish caused  by the bearing of false witness against
          me by you.


General Rebuttal

Mr. Extort, the IRS Printed Product Catalog describes "Collection
Summons --  Income Tax Return", Form 6638, as one that is used to
summon a  third party  to appear  before the IRS and to bring all
specified documents  and records necessary for the IRS to prepare
a Federal income tax return for the year(s) no return was made by
the taxpayer  named on the summons.  I interpret your use of this
Form 6638  to imply a prima facie presumption on your part that I
am a  "taxpayer", as  that term  is defined  at IRC  7701(a)(14).
This rebuttable  presumption by  you is  based on facts which are
not in evidence.

This is  to put you on formal notice that I have already rebutted
this  presumption   by  means  of  the  attached  affidavits  and
declarations which  contain conclusive facts and which show cause
why you  should refrain, with prejudice, from any further demands
upon me to produce any books and records.

Why have  you presumed  to treat  me as a "third party"?  Who are
the first and second parties?  Who is the real party at interest?

Please be advised that, until you can prove otherwise in a timely
manner, I  am not  a "taxpayer"  nor am  I an "individual" who is
required to:   (1)  file a  tax return  for the calendar years in
question,   (2) produce documents and records,  or  (3) appear in
response to an IRS Summons.


General Assertion of Rights

For  your   information,  I   am  not   subject  to  any  foreign
jurisdiction by  reason  of  any  valid  contract  or  commercial
agreement resulting  in my  adhesion to  the "United  States".  I
have not  provided any  waivers of  any Rights  guaranteed by the
Constitution,  through   knowingly  intelligent   acts  such   as
contracts or  commercial  agreements  with  the  "United  States"
executed  "...   with  sufficient   awareness  of   the  relevant
circumstances and  likely consequences ...", as ruled by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S. 742, 748 (1970).  Nor is
it possible that I could have given such waivers by reason of any
Forms 1099  which may have been filed previously by third parties
due to  mutual errors  resulting in  part from  a Social Security
application,  contract,   account  and   number  which  were  all
subsequently rescinded  nunc pro  tunc and  thereby rendered null
and void ab initio (see all attached documents).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 9 of 116


General Reservation of Rights

I, John  E. Trumane, hereby explicitly reserve all natural Rights
and remedies, without prejudicing any, to prove that the Internal
Revenue Service,  represented by  Mark T.  Extort, has no subject
matter jurisdiction  and no  in personam  jurisdiction over me to
request books  and records of this Sovereign American inhabitant,
domiciled in  the California Republic.  Please be advised that my
use of  the phrase  "All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice" below
my signature on this document means:

(1)  that I explicitly reject any and all benefits of the Uniform
     Commercial Code,  absent a  valid commercial agreement which
     is in  force and  to which  I  am  a  party,  and  cite  its
     provisions herein  only to serve notice upon ALL agencies of
     government, whether international, national, state or local,
     that they,  and not  I, are subject to, and bound by, all of
     its provisions, whether cited herein or not;

(2)  that my  explicit reservation  of Rights  has served  notice
     upon ALL  agencies of  government of the "Remedy" which they
     must provide  for me  under Article  1, Section 207  of  the
     Uniform Commercial  Code, whereby I have explicitly reserved
     my Common Law Right not to be compelled to perform under any
     contract or  commercial agreement  that I  have not  entered
     into knowingly, voluntarily, and intentionally;

(3)  that my  explicit reservation  of Rights  has served  notice
     upon ALL agencies of government that they are ALL limited to
     proceeding against  me only  in harmony  with the Common Law
     and that  I do  not,  and  will  not  accept  the  liability
     associated with  the "compelled"  benefit of  any unrevealed
     commercial agreements;  and

(4)  that my  valid reservation  of Rights  has preserved  all my
     Rights  and  prevented  the  loss  of  any  such  Rights  by
     application of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.


This phrase  must not  and will  not, under any circumstances, be
used by  anyone to render inadmissible this letter, or any of its
attachments as itemized infra.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 10 of 116


Notice of Correspondence Location

Please be  advised, once  again, that  from this  point forward I
will require  that all  correspondence from you must be signed in
pen and ink by you, under penalties of perjury, and routed to the
following mailing location:

                   John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic
            NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)


Please be  advised that  I am  not a  "resident alien" nor am I a
"resident" of the federal district known as "CA", and that I will
continue to  refuse any  and all  correspondence, mailed from the
IRS or served by the IRS, which is not sent to the proper mailing
location exhibited immediately above.


                       CONSPICUOUS NOTICE:

In order  to  be  valid,  all  future  service  of  process  must
explicitly acknowledge  the fact  that I  inhabit the  California
Republic, not  the arbitrary  federal  district  known  as  "CA".
Failure to  recognize this  fact necessarily  must invalidate any
and all future service of process.

Please also take notice that I formally object to your use of ZIP
codes when  routing mail  to me,  if  such  ZIP  codes  could  be
construed by courts to mean that I am "subject" in any way to the
"United States".   I am consistently informed by employees of the
U.S.P.S. that  the only  purpose of  ZIP codes is to expedite the
sorting and delivery of mail.  Instead, I hereby repeat my demand
that you utilize the above mailing location, exactly as shown, in
any and all future correspondence with me.


Demand for Response

You are  required to  answer this  correspondence, pursuant to IR
Manual, Chapter 3, at 3(17)(46)1.5, which states:

     (2)  All correspondence  received ...  must be  answered and
     the answer  should indicate:   "This  is in  reply  to  your
     correspondence of such and such date" and explain the action
     taken, even  if  the  action  taken  was  exactly  what  was
     requested.

     (3)  All acknowledgement letters must indicate:

          (a)  why the response is being delayed,
          (b)  when final action can be expected, and
          (c)  employee control number.
                                                 [emphasis added]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 11 of 116


And, IR Manual 1218 states:

     P-1-180:   ... the  Service recognizes the people's right to
     know about  their tax  laws and the manner in which they are
     being administrated.


Notice of Deadline

I hereby  demand that  you either present the requisite authority
to support your presentment within twenty (20) calendar days, per
the Uniform Commercial Code under which all liens, levies and tax
matters are controlled:

     The Federal  Tax Lien  Act of  1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
     101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
     lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
     developed in the Uniform Commercial Code.

                    [Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
                                        [56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978)]


Or, if  the above information is not received by me within twenty
(20) calendar  days as  stated above,  I shall be entitled to the
conclusive presumption  that it  does not  exist,  and  that  the
alleged meeting  you have  scheduled  without  my  permission  is
cancelled.  Your silence will be in violation of the "Prudden and
Tweel Doctrines"  and will  create an estoppel by acquiescence in
all further actions in this matter.

If I do not hear from you within twenty (20) calendar days of the
date on  this letter,  I  will  be  entitled  to  the  conclusive
presumptions that  you lack  the requisite authority and that you
are thereby  barred, pursuant  to the  doctrine  of  estoppel  by
acquiescence, from  any further  challenge to  my  statements  as
contained  herein  and  as  contained  in  all  my  documents  as
previously served  on you,  your agency and other agencies of the
federal government, including the Congress of the United States.


Attachments

This letter  contains a  list of  attached  documents  which  are
incorporated herein  by reference  and made  an explicit  part of
this letter,  as if  set forth  fully herein.    The  signed  and
executed originals of these documents have all been served on the
individuals listed  in the  respective  salutations  and  service
lists shown in these documents.


Certification

I hereby certify, under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the
United States  of America,  without the "United States", that the
foregoing is  true  and  correct,  to  the  best  of  my  current
knowledge, information and belief, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 12 of 116


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sovereign Sui Juris
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

copies:  Mr. Mick Mofatt
         Mr. Mike Tarino
         Major Robert M. Store, Jr.
         U.S. Attorney General
         U.S. Department of Justice, Tax Division
         Commissioner of Internal Revenue
         Assistant IRS Commissioner International
         IRS District Director, Ogden
         IRS District Director, Sacramento

attachments:

     AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICABLE LAW AND DENIAL OF LIABILITY
     Letter to IRS Officer Extort, San Rafael, April 6, 1983
     FOIA Request to IRS Officer Extort, San Rafael, 3/31/1983
     FOIA Request to IRS Officer Agnostic, San Rafael, 3/31/1983
     Letter to Disclosure Officer, Sacramento, November 14, 1983
     FOIA request to District Director, Sacramento, Oct. 23, 1983
     Letter to Secretary of the Treasury , August 1, 1982
     Letter to Chief, Collection Branch, Ogden, August 1, 1982
     Letter to Chief, Collection Branch, Ogden, June 29, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, October 5, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, October 5, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, July 15, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, July 15, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, May 5, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, May 5, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, March 23, 1982
     WITHDRAWAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPLICATION, March 23, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
     NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND PUBLIC NOTICE
       REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT of John E. Trumane
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
     FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT of John E. Trumane
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
     Letter to Vital Records, Boston, Mass., April 3, 1982
     Letter to Vital Records, Bostom, Mass., March 9, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, March 9, 1982
     Letter to Secretary of the Treasury, March 9, 1982
     NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT AND REVOCATION
       OF POWER ASSEVERATION by John E. Trumane
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 9, 1982
     Letter to U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, December 26, 1982
     Letters to U.S. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, November 17, 1982
     Fourth Petition to Congress, May 22, 1981
     Third Petition to Congress, May 3, 1981
     Second Petition to Congress, April 15, 1981
     First Petition to Congress, December 24, 1980


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 13 of 116


   C E R T I F I C A T E   O F   S E R V I C E   B Y   M A I L

It is  hereby certified  that service  of  this  LETTER  and  all
ATTACHMENTS has  been made on the interested party by mailing one
copy thereof,  on this twelfth (12th) day of April, 1983 A.D., in
a sealed Express Mail envelope, with postage prepaid and properly
addressed to him as follows:


Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

Mr. Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic


Dated April 12, 1983 Anno Domini


/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E.  Trumane, Citizen/Principal,  by Special  Appearance,  in
Propria Persona,  proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable Rights.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 14 of 116


Certified Mail Number: __________________________________________

                 Date: __________________________________________

John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
Marin County
San Rafael, California Republic
united States of America


                NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND
               PUBLIC NOTICE REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT
                       OF JOHN E. TRUMANE


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


                            PREAMBLE

     I, Citizen  John E.  Trumane, being  a Massachusetts native-
born white  adult male  living and  working in  Marin County as a
Citizen of  the Republic of California/State since 1979 and I, as
such status,  hereby make  this Special Appearance, by Affidavit,
in Propria  Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, At Law, in Common Law,
with Assistance,  Special, neither  conferring nor  consenting to
any  foreign  jurisdiction,  except  to  the  judicial  power  of
California and/or  America, and  as such  I willfully enforce all
Constitutional  limitations   respectively  on   all   government
agencies  when  dealing  with  them,  wherefore  the  undersigned
Affiant, named  herein and  above, upon  affirmation declares and
evidences the following:

     I, John  E. Trumane, am of lawful age and competent.  I am a
free white  natural born  Citizen in the California Republic, and
thereby in  the united  States of  America, in  fact, by right of
heritage, a Citizen inhabiting the California Republic, protected
via hereditary  succession by my predecessors' previous contracts
with government  as found in the Northwest Ordinance of 1787, the
Organic Act of 1849, the original Constitution of California, the
Articles of  Confederation of  1777,  the  Constitution  for  the
united States  of America  (1787) including its Preamble, and the
Bill of  Rights (1791)  including its  Preamble;  and, as such, I
retain all  my unalienable rights granted by God in positive law,
embodied in  the Declaration  of Independence  (1776) and binding
rights upon myself and my parentage, on this day and for all time
now and hereafter;  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 15 of 116


     I, John E. Trumane, a natural born free white adult male, in
Propria Persona,  proceeding Sui  Juris, At Law, with Assistance,
Special,  receiving   mail  c/o  general  delivery,  San  Rafael,
California Republic,  being duly  sworn and affixing my signature
to this  document, do hereby make the following statement of fact
and affirm:   the  so-called "Social Security" number xxx-xx-xxxx
is revoked in application, in body and in signature, for I affirm
that this  agreement was  imposed upon  me by  usage  of  threat,
coercion, withholding  of material facts, and uninformed consent,
and that  I  was  not  at  age  of  majority;    therefore,  this
aforementioned government  action constitutes  constructive fraud
and placed  me under  duress of mind and therefore deprived me of
giving any  meaningful consent  to the original "Social Security"
application and agreement.  This agreement is null and void, nunc
pro tunc, due to the aforementioned fraud;  and further,


              AFFIDAVIT AMENDMENT PROTECTION CLAUSE

     I, the  undersigned, in  order  to  protect  my  unalienable
rights to  life, liberty  and property,  inclusive of my right to
the proper  in rem  and in personam Citizenship status, have been
forced to  amend certain  legal documents  and statements, due to
the  continued   revelation  and   increased  discovery   of  the
continuous acts  of fraud  upon me  by the  de facto governments,
both State and Federal, and therefore I declare that I am free to
amend any  and all  such documents and statements, as a matter of
substantive right,  for I  cannot be  held liable  for either the
acts or the omissions by governments which are out of my control,
which acts and omissions constitute fraud in one form or another.
Therefore, I  proceed at  all times "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF
ALL MY  RIGHTS AND  WITHOUT PREJUDICE"  to any  of my unalienable
rights,  inclusive  of  my  personal  right  to  substantive  and
procedural due  process proceedings  under the  Judicial Power of
both my State and my Nation.  And further,


     I, John E. Trumane, state and affirm the following:

     1.   That material  facts were  withheld, such  as Title 28,
Section 1746,  Subsections 1  & 2  (being within  or without  the
"United States"), which caused me to be unaware that a completed,
signed, and  submitted "Form  1040" or  "income tax  return"  and
other IRS  and California  Revenue Department forms and documents
are voluntarily executed instruments which could be used as prima
facie  evidence   against  me   in  criminal   trials  and  civil
proceedings  to   show  that   I  had   voluntarily   waived   my
Constitutionally  secured  rights  and  that  I  had  voluntarily
subjected  myself  to  the  federal  income/excise  tax,  to  the
provisions of  the Internal Revenue Code (hereinafter referred to
as  the   IRC),  to  the  authority  of  the  California  Revenue
Department and  to the  authority of the Internal Revenue Service
(hereinafter referred  to as  the IRS)  by  signing  and  thereby
affirming, under penalty of perjury (within the "United States"),
that I  was, in  effect, a "person" subject to the tax;  that the
above  induced  and/or  forced  action,  via  State  and  Federal
governments, clearly  indicates a  violation of the United States
Constitution, Article  1, Section  9, Clause  3:    "No  Bill  of
Attainder or  ex post  facto Law  shall be passed." and Clause 4:
"No Capitation,  or other  direct, Tax  shall be  laid, unless in
Proportion to  the Census or Enumeration hereinbefore directed to
be taken."   These  above  same  injunctions  are  found  in  the
Northwest Ordinance  and in  the California  Constitution.    And
further


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 16 of 116


     2.   That material  facts were  withheld, which caused me to
be unaware  of the legal effects of signing and filing income tax
returns, as  shown by  the decision of the United States Court of
Appeals for  the 9th  Circuit in  the 1974  ruling in the case of
Morse v. U.S., 494 F.2d 876, 880, wherein the Court explained how
a State  Citizen became  a "taxpayer"  by stating:  "Accordingly,
when returns  were filed in Mrs. Morse's name declaring income to
her for  1944 and 1945, making her potentially liable for the tax
due on  that income,  she became a taxpayer within the meaning of
the Internal Revenue Code." [emphasis added]  And further,

     3.   That material  facts were  withheld, which caused me to
be unaware  that the  signing and  filing of an income tax return
and other  IRS forms  are acts of voluntary compliance for a free
Sovereign natural  born Citizen  (see 2:1:5,  U.S.  Constitution)
inhabiting the  united  States  of  America,  when  executed  and
submitted by  said Sovereign living and working within the States
of the  Union;   that I  was unaware that, in a legislative court
such as  a  United  States  District  Court,  the  completed  IRS
documents can  become prima facie evidence, sufficient to sustain
a legal  conclusion by  a judge,  that the signer has voluntarily
changed his  lawful status/state  FROM that  of a  free Sovereign
natural born  Citizen, who  is not  subject to any federal income
tax and  who possesses  all of  his  God-given,  Constitutionally
secured rights  when dealing with government, TO the legal status
of a  "taxpayer" (any  individual,  trust,  estate,  partnership,
association, company  or corporation  subject to  federal  excise
tax), that  is, a  "person" who  is subject to the federal excise
tax and is, therefore, subject to the authority, jurisdiction and
control of  the federal  government under  Title 26 of the United
States Code,  the statutes  governing federal taxation and to the
regulations of  the IRS,  thereby imposing  the tax  on  himself,
waiving his God-given Constitutionally secured rights to property
and labor  in respect  to the  federal income/excise tax statutes
and their  administration by the IRS, and establishing himself as
one who  has privileges only, but no rights, in dealings with the
IRS, the same as a corporation;  that it is my understanding that
the  change   of  status/state  resulting  from  the  signed  IRS
documents is  very similar  to the  change of  status that occurs
when one enlists in the military service and voluntarily takes an
oath that subjects him to the authority, jurisdiction and control
of the  federal government  under Title  10 of  the United States
Code, the statutes governing the armed forces and the regulations
of the  military service,  thereby waiving  his  Constitutionally
guaranteed rights  in relation  to  dealings  with  the  military
services;  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 17 of 116


     4.   That I,  as a natural born free Sovereign inhabitant in
the united  States of America, in the Republic of California, and
as  a   freeman,  am   endowed  by   my  Creator   with  numerous
unalienable/inalienable rights  which include but are not limited
to my  rights to  "life, liberty  and the  pursuit  of  happiness
(property)," which  rights are  specifically  identified  in  the
Magna Carta  (1215) and  the Declaration  of Independence (1776),
and protected  and secured  by the  Constitution for  the  united
States of  America (1789)  and the  subsequent  Bill  of  Rights,
Articles in  Amendment 1  thru 10  (1791);  that my birthright to
the "life,  liberty  and  the  pursuit  of  happiness"  has  been
interpreted by  both the  Framers of  the Constitution and by the
U.S. Supreme  Court to  include my unalienable right to contract,
to acquire, to deal in, to sell, rent, and exchange properties of
various  kinds,   real  and   personal,  without   requesting  or
exercising any  privilege or  franchise from  government;  that I
have learned  that these unalienable property rights also include
my right  to contract  for the  exchange of my labor-property for
other properties  and remuneration,  such as wages, salaries, and
other earnings;   that  I have never knowingly, intentionally, or
voluntarily waived  any of  these unalienable  rights, nor can I,
John E.  Trumane, be  forced to waive any of these rights granted
to me  by God the Father, my Creator (see Brady v. U.S., 397 U.S.
742, 748),  because I  am endowed with these rights by my Creator
and by nobody else and nothing else;  and further,

     5.   That I  understand that,  if the  exercise of my rights
were subjected  to taxation, these same rights could be destroyed
by increasing  the tax  rates to unaffordable levels;  therefore,
courts  have  repeatedly  ruled  that  government  has  no  power
whatsoever to tax or otherwise "lien" against the exercise of any
rights, particularly  the rights  of Sovereign Citizens, as shown
by the U.S. Supreme Court in the case of Murdock v. Pennsylvania,
319 U.S.  105 (1943),  which stated:   "A  state may not impose a
charge for  the enjoyment  of a  right  granted  by  the  Federal
Constitution.";  that unalienable rights are rights against which
no lien  can be established precisely because they are un-a-lien-
able;   that America's  founding documents  enumerate some  of my
unalienable rights,  none of  which rights  I  have  ever  waived
knowingly, voluntarily,  and intentionally;  that I freely choose
to obey  all  American  Law  and  to  pay  all  Lawful  taxes  in
jurisdictions which  are applicable  to me  for the  common good;
that I  stand in  Propria Persona with Assistance, Special;  that
my status  and unalienable  rights, as  stated hereinafter and in
the foregoing, are not negotiable;  and further,

     6.   That, for  years past and at least since the year 1964,
I have  been influenced by numerous cases of people going to jail
and being  punished, and  also by  numerous and  repeated  public
warnings made  by the  California Revenue  Department and  by the
IRS, via  radio, television, the printed press and other forms of
public communication  media, warning of the "deadline" for filing
State and  Federal forms, such as a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return"
and/or other  IRS forms  and documents;  this therefore caused me
to file said forms under duress;  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 18 of 116


     7.   That, in  addition to  the aforesaid  warnings, I  have
also been  influenced by  the misleading and deceptive wording of
IRS publications and IRS-generated news articles, by the pressure
of widespread  rumors and  misinformed public opinion, and by the
advice  and  assurances  of  lawyers,  C.P.A.'s  and  income  tax
preparers which  misled me  to believe  incorrectly that the 16th
Amendment to  the Constitution  for the  united States of America
abolished the  Fifth Amendment  of  that  same  Constitution  and
authorized Congress to impose a direct tax on me, my property, my
exchanges of  property and/or  property received  as a  result of
exercising my Constitutionally secured right to contract;  that I
was further  misled into  believing that  I had  a legal duty and
obligation to  file a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return" and other IRS
and State  tax forms,  schedules and  documents, and  that I  was
unaware of  Title 28,  Section 1746 wherein there are two perjury
clauses, one  stating that you are within the "United States" and
one stating  that you  are without  the  "United  States."    The
perjury clauses  on both  State and  Federal tax forms stipulate,
under penalty  of perjury,  that I was stating unknowingly that I
was within  the "United States."  This is an act of fraud by both
State and Federal taxing agencies.  And further,

     8.   That I  have also  been further  influenced, misled and
alarmed by  rumors, by  misinformed public  opinion  and  by  the
advice  and  assurances  of  lawyers,  C.P.A.'s  and  income  tax
preparers to  the effect that "the IRS and the California Revenue
Department will get you," and that it would be a crime punishable
by fine  and/or imprisonment if I did not fill out, sign and file
with the  IRS a  "Form 1040";   that,  in point of fact, the only
person actually  named within  the IRC  as a  person required  to
collect an income tax, to file an income tax return and to pay an
income tax is a "Withholding Agent";  and that, to the best of my
knowledge, I  am not  now, nor  have I  ever been  a "Withholding
Agent";  and further,

     9.   That, in  addition to  all of  the  reasons  stated  in
paragraphs 6,  7 and  8 above, I was influenced by the common and
widespread  practice   of  employers  who,  either  knowingly  or
unknowingly, without  Power of  Attorney,  misled  me  and  their
employees to  believe that they and I must have a Social Security
Number and  that all  are subject  to the  withholding of "income
taxes"  from   their  earnings,  either  with  or  without  their
permission,  based   upon  the   employers'   possible   mistaken
assumption that  they, as  employers,  are  required  by  law  to
withhold "income  taxes" from  the paychecks  of their employees,
which is  contrary to  the Sections 3402(n), 7343 and 7701(a)(16)
of the  IRC, absent  a  voluntary  execution  of  Form  W-4,  the
"Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate";  and further,

     10.  That  I   have  also  been  mistakenly  influenced  and
mistakenly impressed by annual public displays and indiscriminate
public offerings  by the IRS and the State of large quantities of
the Forms  1040 and  540 in  banks, post offices, and through the
U.S. mail,  which public  displays and  offerings  also  had  the
effect of  reminding me of, and inducing me to respond mistakenly
by filling  out, signing  and sending  "Form 1040" to the IRS and
"Form 540" to the State Franchise Tax Board (FTB);  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 19 of 116


     11.  That said  "Forms 1040"  contained no  reference to any
law or  laws which  would explain  just exactly who is and who is
not subject  to, or liable for, the income tax, State or Federal,
nor did  it contain  any notice  or warning to anyone that merely
sending said  completed "Form  1040" to  the IRS  would waive  my
right to  privacy, as  secured by  the 4th  Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution, and also waive my right to not be a witness against
myself, as secured by the 5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution,
and that  a completed  "Form 1040"  would, in  itself, constitute
legal evidence,  admissible in  a court of law, that the filer is
subject to  and liable for the income/excise tax, even though and
regardless of  the fact  that I, as a free Sovereign natural born
Citizen (see  2:1:5, U.S.  Constitution), am actually and legally
not subject to the statutory jurisdiction of Title 26, nor liable
for any  income/excise tax,  and regardless  of the fact that, to
the best  of my  knowledge, I  have no  legal duty  or obligation
whatsoever to  complete and  file any "Form 1040" or State income
tax forms,  nor did  they evidence  Title 28,  Section 1746;  and
further,

     12.  That at no time was I ever notified or informed, by the
IRS or  by the State of California, nor by any of their agents or
employees, nor  by any  lawyer, C.P.A.,  or tax  preparer, of the
fact that  the  16th  Amendment  to  the  U.S.  Constitution,  as
correctly interpreted  by the U.S. Supreme Court in such cases as
Brushaber v.  Union Pacific  Railroad Co.,  240 U.S. 1 (1916) and
Stanton v. Baltic Mining Co., 240 U.S. 103 (1916), identified the
income tax  as an  indirect excise tax in accordance with Article
1, Section  8, Clause  1 of  the United States Constitution; that
the  16th  Amendment  to  the  U.S.  Constitution,  as  correctly
interpreted by  the U.S.  Supreme Court, does not authorize a tax
on individuals  but is  applicable to  nonresident  aliens  (e.g.
Frank Brushaber)  who involve themselves in activities, events or
occupations which come under, or are within, the taxing authority
of the  "United States",  as explained in Treasury Decision 2313,
March 21,  1916;   that the  16th Amendment  was  never  actually
ratified nor could it have been enacted into positive law because
the requisite number of States (i.e., 36) did not meet the lawful
requirements for  amending the  Constitution;  and that a mass of
incontrovertible material  evidence available since the year 1985
proves that  the act of "declaring" the 16th Amendment "ratified"
was an  act of  outright fraud by Secretary of State Philander C.
Knox in the year 1913;  and further,

     13.  That at  no time was I ever notified or informed by the
California Department  of Revenue nor by the IRS, their agents or
employees, nor  by any  lawyer, C.P.A.,  or tax  preparer, of the
fact that,  because of  various rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court
in such  cases as  Flint v. Stone Tracy Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911),
and Pollock  v. Farmer's Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 492 (1895),
the indirect  excise tax  on incomes  identified by the so-called
16th Amendment is also a tax upon corporate privileges granted by
government, which  tax is  measured by  the amount  of  corporate
income (see  Corporations Tax  Act, Statutes at Large, 1909, vol.
XXXVI, section  38, page  112);  that this indirect excise tax is
also imposed  on the  taxable income of foreign corporations, and
on the  taxable income  of nonresident  aliens to the extent this
(latter) income  is either effectively connected with the conduct
of a  trade or  business within the corporate jurisdiction of the
"United States",  or derived  from sources  within the  corporate
jurisdiction of  the "United  States"  although  not  effectively
connected with  the conduct  of  trade  or  business  within  the
corporate jurisdiction  of  the  "United  States",  according  to
Sections 871 and 872 of the IRC;  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 20 of 116


     14.  That my attention has been called to Report No. 80-19A,
entitled "Some  Constitutional Questions  Regarding  the  Federal
Income Tax  Laws" published  by the  American Law Division of the
Congressional  Research  Service  of  the  Library  of  Congress,
updated January  17, 1980;   that  this publication describes the
tax on "income" identified in the so-called 16th Amendment to the
U.S. Constitution  as an  indirect excise  tax;  that this report
stated:   "The Supreme  Court, in  a decision  written  by  Chief
Justice White,  first noted  that  the  16th  Amendment  did  not
authorize any  new type  of tax,  nor did it repeal or revoke the
tax clauses  of Article  I of  the  United  States  Constitution,
quoted above.",  and further  stated:  "Therefore, it can clearly
be determined  from the  decisions of  the United  States Supreme
Court that  the income  tax is  an indirect tax, generally in the
nature of  an excise  tax ....", thus proving in my mind that the
"income tax"  is not a tax on me as a free Sovereign natural born
Citizen (see  2:1:5,  U.S.  Constitution),  but  is,  rather,  an
indirect excise  tax as  described by  the U.S.  Supreme Court in
Flint v.  Stone Tracy  Co., 220 U.S. 107 (1911), wherein the high
Court  defined   excise  taxes   as  "...  taxes  laid  upon  the
manufacture, sale,  or  consumption  of  commodities  within  the
country, upon  licenses to  pursue certain  occupations, and upon
corporate   privileges    ....",   none    of   which   aforesaid
classifications apply to me;  and further,

     15.  That  I   was  unaware  of  the  truth  of  the  rarely
publicized statement  by the  IRS that the "income" tax system is
based upon "voluntary compliance with the law and self-assessment
of tax";   that  I was  unaware before  June of  1980 of a posted
notice  in  the  main  lobby  of  the  Federal  Building  in  San
Francisco, California  outside the  offices  of  the  IRS,  which
reads, in  pertinent part,  "The purpose  of the Internal Revenue
Service is  to ...  encourage and  achieve the  highest degree of
voluntary  compliance   in  accordance  with  the  tax  laws  and
regulations.";   that I  was unaware before June of 1980 that Mr.
Roger  M.   Olsen,  Assistant  Attorney  General,  Tax  Division,
Department of  Justice,  Washington,  D.C.,  made  the  following
statement to  an assemblage  of tax  lawyers on May 9, 1987:  "We
encourage voluntary  compliance by scaring the heck out of you.";
that it  has never  been either  my intention  nor my  desire  to
voluntarily self-assess an excise tax upon myself, nor to give up
my right  to property,  nor to voluntarily subject myself to such
an excise  tax;   that I  had always  thought that compliance was
required by law;  and further,

     16.  That I have examined Sections 871 thru 878, 1441, 1442,
1443, 3401(c),  6001, 6011, 6012(a), 6331(a), 7203, 7205 and 7343
of the  IRC (Title  26 U.S.C.),  and I  am entirely convinced and
completely satisfied  that I am not now, nor was I ever, any such
"person" or  individual referred  to  by  these  sections;    and
further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 21 of 116


     17.  That,  after  careful  study  of  the  IRC,  and  after
consultations on  the  provisions  of  that  Code  with  informed
lawyers,  tax   accountants  and  tax  preparers  concerning  the
provisions of  the IRC,  I have  never found  or been  shown  any
sections of  the IRC that imposed any requirement on me as a free
Sovereign  natural  born  Citizen  and  unprivileged  inhabitant,
living and  working within  a County within a State of the Union,
to file a "Form 1040 Income Tax Return" or any other State income
tax form,  or that  imposed a requirement upon me to pay a tax on
"income", or  that would  classify me  as a "person liable", as a
"person made  liable", or  as a "taxpayer" as the term "taxpayer"
is defined  in 26 U.S.C. Section 7701(a)(14), which states:  "The
term 'taxpayer'  means any person subject to any internal revenue
tax.";  and further,

     18.  That, after  the study  and consultations  mentioned in
paragraph 17,  the only  mention of any possible requirement upon
me, as  an individual,  to pay  a tax  on "income",  that I could
find, or  was shown  in 26  U.S.C., was the title of Part I under
Subtitle A,  Chapter 1, Subchapter A (which is deceptively titled
"Tax on  Individuals") and  Section 6012(a),  Subtitle F, Chapter
61-A, Part  II-B, Subpart  B, and  the California  Tax  Statutes;
that a  careful study  and earnest  examination of these parts of
the IRC  revealed that  the "individuals"  to whom these sections
refer are,  in fact, either individuals who work within a foreign
country like  France and  are taxed according to a tax treaty, or
they are  nonresident aliens  who receive  income which is either
effectively connected  with the  conduct of  a trade  or business
within the  corporate jurisdiction  of the  "United  States",  or
derived from  sources within  the corporate  jurisdiction of  the
"United States",  although not  effectively  connected  with  the
conduct of trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction of
the "United  States", according  to Sections  871 and  872 of the
IRC;   and that,  to the  best of  my  knowledge,  I  have  never
conducted any trade or business within the corporate jurisdiction
of the  "United States",  nor have  I ever  derived  income  from
sources within the corporate jurisdiction of the "United States";
and further,

     19.  That, after  the study  and consultations  mentioned in
paragraph 17  above, my  attention was called to the IRC, Chapter
21,  entitled   "Federal  Insurance  Contributions  Act"  (Social
Security), and  my attention  was also  called to Subchapter A of
Chapter 21  entitled "Tax  on Employees",  which includes Section
3101, wherein the (Social Security) tax is identified as a tax on
"income", not  as an  "Insurance Contribution",  not as a "Tax on
Employees", and  not as  a tax  on wages  or earnings;   that  my
attention was  further called  to  these  facts:    there  is  no
provision in  the IRC  that  imposes  the  tax  on  employees  or
requires them to pay the tax;  a voluntarily signed and completed
Form W-4,  "Employee's Withholding Allowance Certificate", allows
an employer  to withhold  money from  a worker's  pay for (Social
Security) "income"  tax, even  though the  worker has  claimed on
that form to be "exempt" from the graduated "income" tax;  and an
employer has  no authority  to withhold money from a worker's pay
for  the  (Social  Security)  "income"  tax,  for  the  graduated
"income" tax,  nor for  any IRS-imposed  penalty or assessment if
there is  no voluntarily  signed "W-4"  form in  force and a Form
2678, Granting Power of Attorney;  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 22 of 116


     20.  That, after  the study  and consultations  described in
paragraph 17  above, my  attention was called to Section 61(a) of
the IRC,  which lists  items that are sources of "income", and to
the following facts:  that IRS Collections Summons Form 6638 (12-
82) confirms  that these  items are  sources,  not  "income",  by
stating  that   the  following  items  are  "sources":    "wages,
salaries, tips,  fees, commissions,  interest, rents,  royalties,
alimony, state  or local  tax refunds, pensions, business income,
gains from  dealings in property, and any other compensations for
services (including  receipt of  property  other  than  money).";
that sources  are not  "income", but  sources become  "income" if
they are entered as "income" on a signed "Form 1040", because the
signer affirms,  under penalty  of perjury  (within  the  "United
States"), that  the items  entered in the "income" section of the
"Form 1040"  are "income"  to the  signer;   that  Section  61(b)
clearly indicates  which Sections  of the  IRC identify  and list
items that  are included  in "income"  by stating:    "For  items
specifically included  in gross  income, see Part II (sec. 71 and
following)";  and further,

     21.  That my  attention was  then called to the said Part II
entitled: "Items  Specifically Included in Gross Income";  that I
studied sections  71 thru  87 and  noticed that  wages, salaries,
commissions,  tips,   interest,   dividends,   pensions,   rents,
royalties, etc.,  are not listed as being included in "income" in
those Sections  of the  IRC;   and that, in fact, those items are
not mentioned  anywhere in any of these sections of the IRC;  and
further,

     22.  That, after further diligent study, it appears entirely
clear to  me that  the only way that property received by me as a
free  Sovereign   natural   born   Citizen   (see   2:1:5,   U.S.
Constitution), living and working within the States of the Union,
in the  form of  wages, salaries,  commissions,  tips,  interest,
dividends, rents,  royalties and/or  pensions could  be, or could
have been  legally considered to be "income", is if I voluntarily
completed and  signed a  "Form 1040  Income Tax  Return", thereby
affirming, under penalty of perjury (within the "United States"),
that the  information on  such "Form  1040" was true and correct,
and that  any amounts  listed on  the "Form 1040" in the "income"
block were  "income", and  thereby acknowledging  under  oath  or
affirmation, that I am, or was, a taxpayer subject to the tax and
have, or  had, a  duty to  file a  "Form 1040  Income Tax Return"
and/or other  IRS forms,  documents and  schedules, none of which
instruments I  have ever  signed with  the understanding  that  I
signed them  knowingly, voluntarily,  and  intentionally  and  by
means  of   knowingly  intelligent   acts  done  with  sufficient
awareness of all the relevant circumstances and consequences (see
Brady v.  United States,  397 U.S.  742);   and that, when I have
sent in  State and  Federal tax  forms purposely not signed, they
were returned  to me  with a  letter instructing  and stipulating
that I  must sign the forms under the penalty of perjury, thereby
claiming that  I was a "United States citizen" due to the wording
of the perjury clause (Title 28 U.S.C. 1746);  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 23 of 116


     23.  That, with good faith, with an honest reliance upon the
aforementioned U.S.  Supreme Court rulings and with reliance upon
my constitutionally  protected Natural Common Law Bill of Rights,
Amendments 1  thru 10  (1791), to  lawfully contract, to lawfully
work and to lawfully acquire and possess property, I am convinced
and satisfied  that I  am not  now, nor  was I  ever subject  to,
liable for,  or required  to pay an income/excise tax;  that I am
not now,  nor have  I ever been a "taxpayer", and there has never
been a Judicial Power proceeding in which it was ruled that I was
a "taxpayer"  as that  term is  defined and used in the IRC;  and
that I  have never had any legal duties or obligations whatsoever
to file any "Form 1040" or to make any "income tax return", or to
sign or  submit any  other IRS "individual" forms or documents or
schedules, to  pay any  "individual"  income  tax,  to  keep  any
personal financial records, or to supply any personal information
to the IRS;  and further,

     24.  That the  U.S.  Congress,  the  International  Monetary
Fund, the Federal Reserve Banks and the Internal Revenue Service,
by means  of vague, deceptive and misleading words and statements
in the IRC, in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), in official
statements by  IRS Commissioners  in the Federal Register, in IRS
publications  and   in  IRS-generated  news  articles,  committed
constructive  fraud   and  misrepresentation  by  misleading  and
deceiving me,  as well as the general public, into believing that
I was  required to  file "Form 1040 Income Tax Returns" and other
IRS forms,  documents and  schedules and that I was also required
to keep  records, to  supply information and to pay income taxes;
and further,

     25.  That, by  reason of  the  aforementioned  facts,  I  do
hereby exercise  my rights  as  a  free  Sovereign  natural  born
Citizen (see  2:1:5, U.S.  Constitution), upheld by various court
decisions, to revoke, to cancel and to render null and void, Nunc
Pro Tunc,  both  currently  and  retroactively  to  the  time  of
signing, based  upon the constructive fraud and misrepresentation
perpetrated upon me by the Federal government, the U.S. Congress,
the IRS,  the "State  of California",  its Revenue Department and
the Franchise Tax Board (FTB), all IRS and FTB forms, statements,
documents, returns, schedules, contracts, licenses, applications,
articles, certificates  and/or commercial  agreements ever signed
and/or submitted  by  me,  or  on  my  behalf  by  third  parties
(including but  not limited to Forms 1040 and attached schedules,
Forms W-2, Forms W-4, and Forms 1099) on the accounts bearing the
account numbers  xxx-xx-xxxx, xx-xxxxxxx, and xx-xxxxxxx, and all
my signatures  on  any  and  all  of  the  aforementioned  items,
including  the  original  "Social  Security"  application,  which
caused the  account bearing  the account number xxx-xx-xxxx to be
established;   that this  notice of  revocation is  based upon my
rights with  respect to  constructive fraud and misrepresentation
as established  in, but  not limited  to, the  cases of  Tyler v.
Secretary of  State, 184 F.2d 101 (1962) and also El Paso Natural
Gas Co.  v. Kysar Insurance Co., 605 Pacific 2d 240 (1979), which
stated:   "Constructive fraud  as well as actual fraud may be the
basis of cancellation of an instrument.";  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 24 of 116


     26.  That I  do hereby declare that I am not and never was a
"taxpayer" as  that term is defined in the IRC, a "person liable"
for any  internal revenue  tax, or  a  "person"  subject  to  the
provisions of  the IRC,  and I  do hereby  declare that I am, and
have always  been, a  "nontaxpayer";  that courts have recognized
and acknowledged  that individuals  can be nontaxpayers, "... for
with them  Congress does  not assume to deal and they are neither
the subject  nor the  object of  revenue laws ....", as stated in
the cases  of Long  v. Rasmussen,  281 F.  236 (1922),  Delima v.
Bidwell, 182  U.S. 176,  179, and  Gerth v. United States, 132 F.
Supp. 894 (1955);  and further,

     27.  That evidence  now available  to  me  proves  that  the
Internal Revenue  Service has  to date  failed to comply with the
clear  and   unambiguous  requirements  imposed  on  all  federal
government agencies  by the following Congressional statutes: the
Federal Register Act (44 U.S.C. 1501 et seq.), the Administrative
Procedures  Act  (5  U.S.C.  551  et seq.),   and  the  Paperwork
Reduction Act  (44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq.);  that the IRS failure to
comply  with  the  requirements  of  these  statutes  constitutes
further constructive  fraud, breach  of fiduciary  trust  between
sovereign Citizens  and public  servants, and  violations of  the
solemn oaths  of office required of federal government officials,
thereby relieving  me of  any and all legal duties which could or
might otherwise  exist for  me to file any returns, schedules, or
other documents  with the IRS;  and that, after having read these
three statutes  and summaries  of related  case  law,  I  thereby
conclude that there is no reason why the IRS would be exempt from
any of  the  clear  and  unambiguous  requirements  imposed  upon
federal   government    agencies   by   these   three   statutes,
notwithstanding any  and all  allegations to  the  contrary  that
heretofore may  have been  published by  the IRS  or the Treasury
Department in the Federal Register without also citing the proper
legal authorities, if any, for such allegations;  and further,

     28.  That recent  diligent studies  have convinced me of the
above, and  that as  such I am not "subject to" the territorially
limited "exclusive  legislation" nor  to the foreign jurisdiction
mandated for  the District of Columbia, federal enclaves, federal
territories, and  federal possessions  by Article  1, Section  8,
Clauses 17  and 18 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S.
Constitution, including its "internal" governmental organizations
therein (hereinafter  referred to  as  the  "Federal  Legislative
Democracy" and  elsewhere referred  to in  this Affidavit  as the
"corporate jurisdiction  of the  United States");   that I am not
"subject to"  this foreign  jurisdiction by  reason of  any valid
contract or any  valid commercial agreement resulting in adhesion
thereto across  America,  nor  are  millions  of  other  American
Citizens, unless they have provided "waivers of rights guaranteed
by the  Constitution" by  means of  "knowingly intelligent acts,"
such  as   contracts   or   commercial   agreements   with   such
government(s)  "with   sufficient  awareness   of  the   relevant
circumstances and  likely consequences,"  as ruled  by  the  U.S.
Supreme Court in Brady v. U.S.,  397 U.S. 742 at 748 (1970);  and
that I myself have given no such "waivers";  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 25 of 116


     29.  That these same diligent studies have also proved to me
that misrepresentation  and a  shrewd and  criminal  constructive
fraud have  been perpetrated upon America Citizens by government,
under  counterfeit   "color  of   law,"  through   the   apparent
entrapments of  "certain ACTIVITIES  (monopoly  occupations)  and
PRIVILEGES  (other   benefits)"  allowed  by  statutory  acts  or
otherwise;   that, by reason of American Law which has never been
repealed, such  sources of  past and  present criminal element in
and  behind   government  should  be  brought  to  justice  in  a
Constitutional  Court   of  Law  for  aiding  and  abetting  this
misrepresentation and  constructive fraud as willing accomplices;
that it  is for  such a Court, with a 12-member jury of peers, to
decide  who   is  and  who  is  not  guilty  among  personnel  of
government, media,  schools,  lawyers,  accountants,  clergy  and
other purveyors  of misinformation and other mind-set propaganda,
in this and related regards;  and further,

     30.  That, due  to such shrewd entrapments over the years, I
have unwittingly  signed many  related documents,  contracts, and
commercial  agreements,  some  even  under  the  "perjury"  jurat
(within the  "United States")  as was  supposedly required;  with
American Law  on my  side, I hereby revoke and cancel any and all
such signatures  and render  them null and void, except for those
which I  may choose  to have  considered  as  being  under  "TDC"
(Threat, Duress and/or Coercion), past and present;  that this is
also my  lawful notice  that all  such signatures  of mine in the
future on  instruments of government or other entities, including
banks, which  might otherwise result in contract adhesion, are to
be considered  as being  under "TDC", whether appearing therewith
or otherwise;  that my Constitutional "Privileges and Immunities"
(per Article  4, Section 2) are apart from those mandated for the
Federal Legislative Democracy by Article 1, Section 8, Clauses 17
and 18  and by  Article 4,  Section 3, Clause 2, and shall not by
Law be  violated ever;   and that my status, in accord, is stated
for all  to see  and know in 2:1:5, 1:2:3, 4:2:1 and 3:2:1 of the
Constitution for the united States of America.  And further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 26 of 116


     31.  That,  with  this  accurate  knowledge  and  with  "the
supreme Law of the Land" (Article 6, Section 2) again on my side,
I do  Lawfully and "squarely challenge" the fraudulent, usurping,
octopus-like authority  and jurisdiction cited above in paragraph
28, which  authority and  jurisdiction do  not apply  to me  (see
Hagans v. Lavine, 415  U.S. 528  at 533);   it is, therefore, now
mandatory for  any personnel of the Federal Legislative Democracy
or its  agents to FIRST PROVE its "jurisdiction," if any, over me
before any  further procedures  can take  place in my regard, per
Title  5   United  States   Code,  "Government  Organization  and
Employees," Section 556(d), specifically by disclosing in writing
any and  all contracts or other commercial agreements whereby the
Federal Legislative  Democracy  and  its  agents  claim  to  have
obtained  controlling  interest  in  me  such  that  my  specific
performance  to  any  third  party  debt  or  obligation  can  be
compelled;   OR ELSE  any of  its personnel  and accomplices  who
willfully violate  this  statute  can  and  shall  be  personally
charged as  citizens under Title 18 U.S. Criminal Codes 241, 242,
1001 and/or  otherwise;  and, in fairness, it must be added that,
to my knowledge, IRS agents have NO written lawful "Delegation of
Authority" within  the 50  States and their so-called "Form 1040"
appears to  be a  bogus and  bootleg document  on its  face;  and
further,

     32.  That, with  all of  the above  in mind, it appears that
this free  Sovereign natural born American Citizen is, by Law, as
"foreign" and  as much  a "Nonresident Alien" with respect to the
Federal Legislative  Democracy as he is to France, and thus shall
be free to use related Forms of the Federal Legislative Democracy
if and  when they might be needed, required and/or appropriate at
various future  times  and  places  yet  to  be  determined  (see
paragraphs 12,  13 and  18 above),  including but  not limited to
Form W-8 ("Certificate of Foreign Status") for banks and/or other
financial institutions,  Forms 1040X  ("Amended  U.S.  Individual
Income Tax  Return") and  1040NR ("U.S.  Nonresident Alien Income
Tax Return")  for refunds  and for  correcting the administrative
record, and  IRC Section 3402(n) which authorizes certificates of
exemption from withholding.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 27 of 116


     33.  That, since my date  of birth on April 21, 1947, I have
always been  a NONRESIDENT  ALIEN with  respect  to  the  Federal
Legislative  Democracy  of  the  "United  States",  never  having
resided, worked,  nor having  any  income,  to  the  best  of  my
recollection, from  any sources  within the District of Columbia,
Puerto Rico,  Virgin  Islands,  Guam,  American  Samoa,  Northern
Mariana Islands,  the Trust  Territory of  the Pacific Islands or
any other  territory or  possession within  the "United  States",
which entity  obtains its  exclusive  legislative  authority  and
jurisdiction from  Article 1,  Section 8,  Clauses 17  and 18 and
Article 4,  Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution;  that I
have  always   been  a   non-taxpayer  outside   the  venue   and
jurisdiction of  Title 26, United States Code;  that, to the best
of my knowledge, I have never had any "U.S. trade or business" as
defined in  Title 26  and in  26 C.F.R.;  that, to the best of my
knowledge, I  have never  had any  "gross income"  from any  U.S.
sources, as  the term  "gross income"  is defined  in  26  U.S.C.
872(a);  and further,

     34.  That my  use of  IRS Forms  1040X and  1040NR shall  be
presumed to  mean that  they were  filed solely  to  correct  the
administrative record  permanently,  retroactively  to  June  21,
1948, so as to claim any lawful refunds that may be due, to rebut
any  erroneous   presumptions  and/or   terminate  any  erroneous
elections of  U.S. "residence" which may have been established in
error by  the filing  of any prior IRS forms, schedules and other
statements by  mistakes resulting  in part  from the demonstrable
vagueness that is evident in Title 26 and its regulations, and by
mistakes  resulting   also  from   the  constructive   fraud  and
misrepresentation mentioned  throughout this  Affidavit;   that I
was neither  born nor  naturalized in the "United States", I have
never been  subject to  its jurisdiction, and I have never been a
"United States  citizen" as  defined in  26 C.F.R.  1.1-1 and  as
defined in the so-called 14th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;
and further,

     35.  That  I   am  not  now,  nor  have  I  ever  knowingly,
intentionally and  voluntarily, with  informed  consent,  entered
into  any   personal,  internal,  public  or  private  agreement,
contract, stipulation,  account or  similar contrivance  with the
"United States",  the "Federal  Government" or  the "District  of
Columbia",  its  territories,  its  agencies  or  other  property
appurtenant thereto,  which would  have altered  or waived  my de
jure, Sui  Juris status,  or  my  natural  unalienable  God-given
natural rights;   that any such agreement, contract, expressed or
implied, such  as a  Social Security  number and  application, or
Driver's License,  or Bank  Signature Card, or the use of Federal
Reserve Notes  (which are  not lawful Specie) etc., have all been
hereby revoked,  due to  the fraudulent  withholding of  material
facts, which  became a  snare and a trap and, as such, are a Bill
of Attainder  on this  free Sovereign  natural born  Citizen  and
inhabitant in the united States of America, for I cannot become a
nexus by  the effect of a fraudulent nexum, because my status and
unalienable  natural   rights  are   not  negotiable,   and   the
government, both State and Federal, has not proved that they ever
had jurisdiction  to change  my status,  as required  by Title  5
U.S.C.  Section   556(d),  or   as  defined  and  set  out  as  a
Constitutional requirement in Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 533
(see also Brady v. United States, 397 U.S. 742 at 748);  that any
change of  status would  lawfully have  to take place in a Common
Law (judicial  power) court  under the  due process clause of the
5th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution;  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 28 of 116


     36.  That this  is to  certify that I, John E. Trumane, am a
free Sovereign  natural born Citizen and inhabitant in the united
States  of  America,  living  and  breathing  in  the  California
Republic, living  and working  in Marin  County, living under the
Common Law,  having assumed,  among the  powers of the Earth, the
Separate and  Equal Station  to which  the  Laws  of  Nature  and
Nature's God  entitles me,  in order  to secure  the Blessings of
Liberty to  Myself and  my Posterity,  and in order to re-acquire
the Birthright  that was  taken  from  me  by  fraud,  do  hereby
asseverate and  revoke all  feudatory contracts  with the Federal
government and  its agencies  and with  the  corporate  State  of
California and  its agencies,  for I,  John E.  Trumane, being of
sound mind  and body,  do not  choose, nor have I ever chosen, to
give up,  relinquish or  otherwise waive  any  of  my  God-given,
natural, Constitutionally secured rights;  and further,

     37.  That my use of the phrase "WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF
ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207" above my signature
on this  document indicates  that I  have exercised  the "Remedy"
provided for  me in  the Uniform  Commercial Code  in Book  1  at
Section 207,  whereby I  have explicitly  reserved my  Common Law
right not  to be  compelled to  perform  under  any  contract  or
commercial agreement,  that I  have not  entered into  knowingly,
voluntarily, and  intentionally;  that my explicit reservation of
rights has  served notice  upon ALL  administrative  agencies  of
government, whether  international, national,  state,  or  local,
that I  do not, and will not accept the liability associated with
the "compelled"  benefit of any unrevealed commercial agreements;
and that  my valid  reservation of  rights has  preserved all  my
rights and  prevented the  loss of any such rights by application
of the concepts of waiver or estoppel.  And further,

     38.  That I  reserve my  unalienable  right  to  amend  this
Affidavit at  times and  places of  my own choosing, according as
new facts  and revelations  are made  available to  me at various
future times  and places  as  yet  unknown,  and  as  yet  to  be
determined, given  the massive  fiscal fraud  which has  now been
sufficiently revealed  to me  by  means  of  material  and  other
reliable   evidence    which   constitutes    satisfactory    and
incontrovertible proof  of the  fraud to  which I  refer in  this
paragraph and elsewhere in this Affidavit.

     39.  That I  affirm under  penalty  of  perjury,  under  the
Common Law  of America,  without the  "United States",  that  the
foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge;  and


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 29 of 116


Further This Affiant saith not.


Subscribed and  affirmed to  Nunc Pro  Tunc on  the  date  of  my
majority, which day was April 21, 1968.


Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this  ________________  day of

___________________________, 1982.


I now  affix my  own signature  to all  of the above affirmations
WITH EXPLICIT  RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE
UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207):


/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E.  Trumane, Citizen/Principal,  by special  Appearance,  in
Propria Persona,  proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice"  to any  of my unalienable rights, per UCC 1-
207 (UCCA 1207).


                         John E. Trumane
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic


Acknowledgement

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


     On this  ______ day of ______________________________, 1982,
John E.  Trumane did personally appear before me, and is known to
be  the  one  described  in,  and  who  executed,  the  foregoing
instrument, and  acknowledged that  he executed  the same  as his
free act and deed as a Citizen/Sovereign in this above named said
State of  the Union.   Purpose  of notary  is for  identification
only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.


                            _____________________________________
                            Notary Public


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 30 of 116


Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        June 6, 1983

Martin L. Agnostic
Revenue Agent
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 101 Lucas Valley Road
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

Subject:  "4549 Tax Assessment Report"

Dear Mr. Agnostic:

I am  returning herewith  voided copies  of your cover letter and
so-called Form  4549-CG (Rev.  10-90), which was signed by you on
March 25, 1983, and taped to my front door on March 31, 1983.

Mr. Agnostic, you have signed your name in pen and ink to a false
statement, because  your signature on Page 2 of 2 of that form is
dated "04/13/93".

It is  not humanly  or physically possible for you to have signed
Form 4549-CG  on "04/13/93",  and then to have hand-delivered the
same to me on March 31, 1983.

Mr. Agnostic, you are hereby warned that your willingness to sign
your name  on a  false, fictitious  or  fraudulent  statement  is
punishable by  a fine  up to $10,000 and prison up to 5 years, or
both.  Specifically, Title 18 U.S.C., Section 1001 states:

     Whoever, in  any matter  within the jurisdiction of any
     department or agency of the United States knowingly and
     willfully falsifies,  conceals, or  covers  up  by  any
     trick, scheme,  or device a material fact, or makes any
     false,   fictitious    or   fraudulent   statement   or
     representations, or  makes or uses any false writing or
     document  knowing   the  same  to  contain  any  false,
     fictitious or  fraudulent statement  or entry, shall be
     fined not more than $10,000 or imprisoned not more than
     five years, or both.
     
                            [18 U.S.C. 1001, emphasis added]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 31 of 116


I am  obligated under law to retain originals of these documents,
because  they  constitute  material  evidence  of  your  criminal
behavior.   I am  also  obligated  to  report  evidence  of  your
criminal behavior to the Department of Justice.

Sir, consider yourself warned.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
Sovereign Sui Juris


copy:  Mark T. Extort,
       IRS Revenue Officer

enclosures:   voided copy of cover letter,
              signed and dated March 25, 1983
              hand-delivered March 31, 1983

              voided copies of Form 4549-CG,
              dated "04/13/93"
              hand-delivered March 31, 1983


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 32 of 116


Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael, California

                                        March 9, 1982

Mr. Nicholas Brady, Secretary
Department of the Treasury
15th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia

Dear Mr. Secretary:

Please be  so kind  as to  forward the enclosed Affidavits to all
appropriate governmental  office(s), so that proper notice can be
taken of  their contents,  and suitable action(s) can be taken to
comply with their mandates.

If I  do not  hear from  you, or  any of  your delegates,  within
ninety (90)  days of  the above  date, I  will  presume  that  my
statements are correct and that you do not have any rebuttal.

Thank you very much for your consideration.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
WITH EXPLICIT RESERVATION OF ALL MY RIGHTS
AND WITHOUT PREJUDICE UCC 1-207 (UCCA 1207)

enclosures:  NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND
             PUBLIC NOTICE REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT

             FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT


copies:  Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives
         Alan Cranston, United States Senate
         John Seymour,  United States Senate


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 33 of 116


Certified Mail #P 080 954 019
Return Receipt Requested
                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael, California

                                        August 1, 1982

Mr. Nicholas Brady, Secretary
Department of the Treasury
15th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia

Dear Mr. Brady:

This letter  is in  reference to my letter to you, dated March 9,
1982, transmitting  my attached NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND
PUBLIC NOTICE REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT and FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT.

In my transmittal letter, I asked you to forward these affidavits
to appropriate  governmental office(s),  so  that  proper  notice
could be  taken of  their contents, and suitable actions could be
taken to comply with their mandates.

I have  attached copies  of that  transmittal letter and of those
affidavits.   According to  the green Postal Return Receipt card,
your office has already acknowledged receipt of those documents.

To date, I have received no replies or rebuttals from you or from
any of your delegates.

Therefore, I  am giving  you an  additional sixty  (60)  days  to
respond to  my letter of transmittal and attached affidavits, and
to notify  me of  the action(s)  which you or your delegates have
taken pursuant to those documents.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and  without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights

attachments:  copies of letter and affidavits
              dated March 9, 1982

copies:  Barbara Boxer, House of Representatives
         Alan Cranston, United States Senate
         John Seymour,  United States Senate


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 34 of 116


Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx           c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested                San Rafael, California
Restricted Delivery Requested

                                        August 28, 1982

Theron C. Polivka
Director, Service Center
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, California

Subject:  Your Reference #xxxxxxxxxx

                  NOTICE and DEMAND for PAYMENT

Dear Mr. Polivka:

Your letter  dated August  24, 1982,  with one (1) attachment and
addressed to  "John E. Trumane" is invalid for lacking a verified
signature, as  required by 26 U.S.C. 6065;  for containing false,
misleading and  misrepresentative  statements;    for  exhibiting
presumptions which  have already  been  rebutted  under  separate
cover;  and for exhibiting bad faith as demonstrated by facts set
forth herein.   In  order to  demonstrate my  good faith  in this
matter, without  granting  jurisdiction  in  any  way,  and  with
explicit  reservation   of  ALL   of  my  unalienable  rights,  I
voluntarily respond to your invalid letter, as follows:


Unverified Signature

Your letter  is invalid for lacking a written declaration that it
was signed  by you  under penalties  of perjury.    This  written
declaration is required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065, as follows:


     6065  Verification of Returns.

     Except as  otherwise provided  by the Secretary, any return,
     declaration, statement,  or other  document required  to  be
     made under  any provision  of the  internal revenue  laws or
     regulations shall  contain  or  be  verified  by  a  written
     statement that it is made under the penalties of perjury.

                                 [26 U.S.C. 6065, emphasis added]


False Statement

Your letter  contains the  following statement:   "The  claim  is
based on the view that wages and salary do not constitute taxable
income."   This statement  is false.   My claim was filed in good
faith by means of Forms 1040X and 1040NR, dated 3/1/92.  Courtesy
copies of  the executed forms are attached, for your information.
I draw  your specific  attention to page 2 of the executed 1040X,
and to  page 6  of the executed 1040NR.  Please note that nowhere
on these  executed forms is there expressed any "view", statement
or implication  that wages  and salary  do not constitute taxable
income.     Your  willingness   to  make   a  statement  that  is
demonstrably false is proof of your bad faith in this matter.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 35 of 116


Misleading Statement

Your letter  also contains  the following  misleading  statement:
"The U.S.  Tax Court  and other Federal courts have rejected this
argument repeatedly  and have  held that  wages  and  salary  are
taxable income  reportable at  the full  amount received."   This
statement is  misleading, for the following reasons.  Even though
it may  be true  that the  "U.S. Tax  Court" and  certain  "other
Federal courts"  have rejected the argument that wages and salary
do not  constitute taxable  income, the decisions of these courts
directly contradict  numerous consistent  decisions by  the  U.S.
Supreme Court  on this  question.   Under the  doctrine of  stare
decisis, Supreme  Court decisions  always  take  precedence  over
decisions of  all other  federal courts.   Your ignorance of this
case law is no excuse.

The U.S.  Supreme Court  has repeatedly ruled that "income" means
"profit or  gain".   For the  record, I  refer you  to Eisner  v.
Macomber,  252   U.S.  189,  207,  Merchant's  Loan  &  Trust  v.
Smietanka, 255  U.S. 509, 519, Goodrich v. Edwards, 255 U.S. 527,
535, Southern  Pacific v.  John Z. Lowe, 247 U.S. 330, 335, Doyle
v. Mitchell  Brothers, 247 U.S. 179, 185, Stratton's Independence
v. Howbert,  231 U.S.  399, 415,  Bowers v.  Kerbaugh-Empire, 271
U.S. 170, 174, and Burnet v. Harmel, 287 U.S. 103.  In particular
the Smietanka  Court, in  defining the  term "income", ruled that
"... what  that meaning  is has  now become definitely settled by
decisions of  this court"  [at 519].   It  would be difficult and
perhaps impossible  in our  system of  jurisprudence  to  find  a
principle that  is better  settled by  the Supreme Court than the
definition of "income".  The Bowers decision itemizes some of the
many relevant Supreme Court authorities.

This matter is extremely important because that same U.S. Supreme
Court has  told Congress,  in clear and certain terms, that it is
essential to distinguish between what is and what is not "income"
and to  apply that  distinction according to truth and substance,
without regard  to form.   "Congress  cannot by any definition it
may adopt  conclude the  matter, since  it cannot  by legislation
alter the  Constitution, from which alone it derives its power to
legislate, and  within whose  limitations alone that power can be
lawfully exercised."   Eisner  v. Macomber,  252 U.S.  189,  206.
Read it!   For  the record,  I point  out to you that "income" as
such is  NOT defined anywhere in Title 26.  For this very reason,
I have  no alternative  but to resort to decisions of the highest
Court in  the land  to determine  its meaning in law.  To repeat,
your ignorance  of the  relevant case  law in  this matter  is no
excuse, Mr.  Polivka.  Moreover, the Supreme Court has ruled that
an individual  should not be punished or penalized for relying on
its decisions:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 36 of 116


     And if the doctrine of stare decisis has any meaning at all,
     it requires that people in their everyday affairs be able to
     rely on  our decisions  and not  be needlessly penalized for
     such reliance.

                    [U.S. v. Mason, 412 U.S. 391, 399-400 (1973)]


Misrepresentations

Your letter  exhibits a  gross misrepresentation  because of your
"Notice 555  (9-80), Department of the Treasury, Internal Revenue
Service", which  was attached  to your letter.  Notice 555 (9-80)
is incorrectly titled "Filing Requirements, Pertinent Sections --
Internal Revenue  Code, Title  26,  United  States  Code".    Mr.
Polivka, Section  6012 of  the IRC  as quoted therein is not only
incomplete;   it also  quotes a portion of IRC Section 6012 which
was in  force in  January of  1983, almost  10 years  ago!    The
Internal Revenue Code has been amended numerous times since then.
I draw  your specific attention to the Tax Reform Act of 1986, in
case you  missed it.  Sir, your ignorance of these changes in the
law is  no excuse.   For  proof, read  and  compare  the  current
Section 6012  of the  current IRC, with Section 6012 as quoted in
your "Notice  555", and  you will  find that your "Notice 555" is
defective on its face.


Your letter  contains another misrepresentation that the obsolete
portion of  Section 6012  cited in  your "Notice  555" is somehow
"pertinent" to  my claim.   This  is a  conclusion of law on your
part which  is not  supported by  the facts  that are  now on the
administrative  record  in  my  case  (see  attached  documents).
Notably, your  "Notice  555"  completely  fails  to  mention  the
following pertinent  paragraph from  Section 6012  of the current
IRC:

     ... except that subject to such conditions, limitations, and
     exceptions and  under such  regulations as may be prescribed
     by the  Secretary, nonresident  alien individuals subject to
     the tax  imposed by  section 871  and  foreign  corporations
     subject to  the tax  imposed by  section 881 may be exempted
     from the requirement of making returns under this section.

                                 [26 U.S.C. 6012, emphasis added]


The facts  that are  now on  the administrative record in my case
conclusively prove that I was a non-immigrant "nonresident alien"
individual with  respect to  the "United  States" during calendar
year 1989,  as those  terms are  defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 CFR,
and that I was not subject to any taxes imposed either by Section
871 of  the IRC, or by any other sections of the IRC, during that
particular calendar year.  Therefore, I had no filing requirement
as such  during that  particular calendar year.  Specifically, my
"gross income"  was zero  during that  calendar year, as the term
"gross income" is defined at 26 U.S.C. Section 872(a).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 37 of 116


Taxpayer Presumption

Your letter  is addressed  with the  salutation "Dear  Taxpayer".
This salutation  evidences an  erroneous presumption on your part
that I am now a "taxpayer" and/or that I was a "taxpayer" at some
time during  calendar year  1989.  The attached documents include
affidavits which  constitute conclusive  proof that  I was  not a
"taxpayer" at  any time  during calendar  1989, as  that term  is
defined in  Title 26  (see attached).   This  presumption on your
part is  hereby rebutted.  I demand that you correct your records
because they are in error.


Identification Presumption

Your letter  evidences an erroneous presumption on your part that
I currently  have a valid "taxpayer identification number".  This
presumption  is  hereby  rebutted  conclusively.    The  attached
documents include  affidavits and  other statements of fact which
constitute conclusive  proof that the identification number shown
on your  letter was  rescinded and  rendered null  and  void,  ab
initio, for the several reasons stated therein.  You will note in
my letter  of June  29, 1982 to the Chief, Collection Branch, IRS
in Ogden,  Utah, that all future written communication to the IRS
from John E. Trumane will bear unique identification number #965-
76-3264 until  such time  as the  Internal Revenue Service or the
Department of  the  Treasury  issues  a  different  non-immigrant
nonresident alien  account identification number.  Because I have
not yet  been assigned  a different account identification number
by the  IRS or  the Treasury Department, until further notice you
are hereby  ordered to  utilize number #965-76-3264 in all future
correspondence with  me.   I demand that you correct your records
because they are in error.


Incorrect Mailing Address

The mailing  address on  your notice  is incorrect.   The correct
mailing address for "John E. Trumane" is as follows:

                   John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic


I demand that you correct your records because they are in error.


ZIP Code Presumption

Please note  also that  I object  to your  use of a ZIP code when
addressing mail  to me,  if such  ZIP code  could be construed to
mean that I am "subject" in any way to the "United States".  I am
consistently informed  by employees of the U.S.P.S. that the only
purpose of  ZIP codes  is to expedite the sorting and delivery of
mail.   For the  record, I  am not  "subject" in  any way  to the
"United States".   I  am not  a  "United  States  citizen"  or  a
"citizen of the District of Columbia" who is "resident" in one of
the 50  States of  the Union.  I am not within the purview of the
municipal  laws   of  the   District  of  Columbia.    It  is  my
understanding that the IRS has adopted ZIP code areas as Internal
Revenue Districts  (see Federal  Register, Volume  51, Number 53,
Wednesday, March  19, 1986).  Specifically, I am not a "resident"
in the  "CA" area  of the  District of  Columbia (i.e.  a federal
district).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 38 of 116


For the  record, and  to  reiterate  numerous  statements  of  my
correct status  in the  attached documents,  I am  a natural born
Citizen of  the  California  Republic  (see  2:1:5  in  the  U.S.
Constitution).  The U.S. Constitution also refers to People of my
status as  "State Citizens".   I  categorically deny any grant of
jurisdiction, either expressed or implied, to the "United States"
or to any of its agencies or assigns, by reason of the use of ZIP
codes on  any of  my incoming or outgoing mail.  In fact, the use
of ZIP  codes in  this way  by any  agencies or  assigns  of  the
"United States" is a sly and subtle trick, constituting fraud and
entrapment on its face and in point of fact.  To repeat, I am not
subject to the municipal jurisdiction of the District of Columbia
or any of its "domestic" corporations.

You are  hereby given  actual notice that my use of ZIP codes, on
incoming and outgoing mail, is under threat, duress, and coercion
because I  am forced  to pay  full postage on all classes of mail
without ZIP codes, because I am told by numerous postal employees
that the absence of ZIP codes will delay the delivery of my mail,
and because  the Domestic  Mail Manual  (DMM) states clearly that
the U.S.P.S.  cannot discriminate  against  the  non-use  of  ZIP
codes.


Bad Faith

For all  the reasons  stated above and in the attached documents,
you, your  agency and  its employer continue to exhibit bad faith
with me  for the several reasons stated herein.  On the contrary,
you, your  agency and  its employer  are under  the obligation of
good faith  that is  imposed at  several places  in  the  Uniform
Commercial Code, to wit:

     Obligation of Good Faith.

     Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
     of good faith in its performance or enforcement.
                                                      [UCC 1-203]


The law  in this  area is  clear and  unambiguous:   bad faith is
synonymous with  fraud;  fraud  vitiates  even  the  most  solemn
contracts; and  "constructive as  well as actual fraud may be the
basis  of  cancellation  of  an  instrument"  (see  citations  in
attached documents).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 39 of 116


Notice of Personal Liability

My refund claim was properly filed, on the correct forms, in good
faith, to  the best of my knowledge and with explicit reservation
of all my rights (see 26 CFR Sections 301.6402-3(a)(2), -3(e) and
also 26 U.S.C. Sections 6402 and 6511).  Your refusal to allow my
claim constitutes  evidence of  your willingness  to withhold  my
property and  thereby  to  violate  my  fundamental,  unalienable
rights.   As you  must already  know, Mr.  Polivka,  if  you  act
outside your  lawful capacity as an individual or as a government
employee and  public servant, you can and will be held personally
liable for each and every violation that you commit.

Be further  advised that my possible future remedies will include
the filing of a complaint against you and your superior(s) with a
U.S. Magistrate  and the Federal Bureau of Investigation and/or a
formal complaint  with a  U.S. Magistrate  under Rule  3  of  the
Federal Rules  of Criminal Procedure, demanding that a Summons be
issued upon  you to  show cause  why you  should not  be formally
charged with  violations of  26 U.S.C. 7214, among all other laws
which you  are obliged  to obey  but  which  are  not  enumerated
herein.  I suggest that you consider this section of the Internal
Revenue Code  very carefully  as  it  applies  to  your  personal
situation in this matter.  Specifically:

     *    unlawfully  withholding   my  property   is  a  willful
          oppression under color of law (7214(a)(1))

     *    unlawfully withholding  my property  is  a  failure  to
          perform a  duty of  your office,  with intent to defeat
          the application of IRC refund provisions (7214(a)(2)).


Other charges  against you  can and will include fraud, theft and
criminal conspiracy  to deprive  a Sovereign State Citizen of the
rights guaranteed to him by the U.S. Constitution.  Keep in mind,
Mr. Polivka,  that you  personally enjoy  absolutely no  personal
immunity for  unlawful acts  committed outside your capacity as a
public servant:

I HEREBY DEMAND THAT YOU RETURN THE MONEY THAT BELONGS TO ME AND

I DEMAND YOUR IMMEDIATE COOPERATION AND OBEDIENCE TO THE LAW.


Documents Incorporated by Reference

For your  information, attached  please find  unsigned copies  of
documents referenced  above.  If you require them for any reason,
I recommend that you request the signed and executed originals of
these documents  from their  recipients, as shown in the attached
letters of  transmittal.    I  hereby  incorporate  all  attached
documents and  make them  an explicit  part of  this  letter,  by
reference.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 40 of 116


Unsworn Declaration

All of  the above statements are true and correct, to the best of
my  current  knowledge,  and  are  affirmed  under  penalties  of
perjury, without  the "United  States", under  the  laws  of  the
United States of America, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and  without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights


attachments:

     Letter to IRS, Ogden, Utah, August 1, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, August 1, 1982
     Letter to IRS, Ogden, Utah, June 29, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, June 29, 1982
     Letter to Treasury Secretary, August 1, 1982
     Letter to Treasury Secretary, March 9, 1982
     NUNC PRO TUNC ESTOPPEL AT LAW AND PUBLIC NOTICE
       REVOCATION AFFIDAVIT of John E. Trumane
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 9, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
     FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT of John E. Trumane
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 9, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, July 15, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, July 15, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, May 5, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, May 5, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, March 23, 1982
     WITHDRAWAL OF SOCIAL SECURITY APPLICATION, March 23, 1982
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 23, 1982
     Letter to Vital Records, Boston, Mass., April 3, 1982
     Letter to SSA, Baltimore, Maryland, March 9, 1982
     NUNC PRO TUNC REVOCATION OF CONTRACT AND REVOCATION
       OF POWER ASSEVERATION by John E. Trumane
     Certificate of Service by Mail, March 9, 1982
     Completed Form 1040X  sent to IRS Ogden, 3/1/92
     Completed Form 1040NR sent to IRS Philadelphia, 3/1/92


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 41 of 116


   C E R T I F I C A T E   O F   S E R V I C E   B Y   M A I L

                  Certified Mail #P 080 954 329

     It is  hereby certified that service of this LETTER has been
made on  interested parties  by mailing one copy thereof, on this
twenty-eighth day  of August,  1982, in  a sealed  envelope  with
postage prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:


Theron C. Polivka
Director, Service Center
Internal Revenue Service
Fresno, California


Dated:  August 28, 1982


/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E.  Trumane, Sovereign Citizen, by Special Appearance, In My
Own  Stead,  proceeding  Sui  Juris,  with  Assistance,  Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 42 of 116


Certified Mail #P 840 292 047
Return Receipt Requested

                                             c/o general delivery
                                             San Rafael
                                             California Republic

                                             October 23, 1982

Mr. Raymond A. Spillman
District Director
Internal Revenue Service
P. O. Box 2900
Sacramento, California

Re:  Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Mr. Spillman:

This is  a request  under the  Freedom of Information Act, and my
formal written response to your letter to me, dated September 24,
1982, a copy of which is attached for your information.

Without dishonor,  I hereby request that you provide me with true
and correct copies of the following:

     (1)  all documents  on  which  you  based  your  presumptive
          determination that  I am a "United States citizen" or a
          "citizen of the United States";

     (2)  all documents  on  which  you  based  your  presumptive
          determination that  I am "subject" to any provisions of
          the Internal Revenue Code (IRC) and its regulations;

     (3)  all documents  on  which  you  based  your  presumptive
          determination that I am an "individual" as that term is
          used in Part I, Section 1 of the IRC;

     (4)  all documents  on  which  you  based  your  presumptive
          determination  that  I  am  one  of  the  "individuals"
          described in paragraphs 1, 2 and 3 of your letter;

     (5)  all documents  on  which  you  based  your  presumptive
          determination that I am a "person liable" for any taxes
          imposed by the IRC and its regulations;

     (6)  all documents  on  which  you  based  your  presumptive
          determination that I am a "person required" to make and
          file a return;

     (7)  all documents  on  which  you  based  your  presumptive
          determination that  I am  now receiving, or have in the
          past received, "taxable income";

     (8)  all documents  on  which  you  based  your  presumptive
          determination that  I am  a "taxpayer"  as that term is
          defined in the IRC;

     (9)  your identification  and evidence  of your authority to
          make and  present presumptive  determinations about me,
          such as  those contained  in your attached letter dated
          "SEP 24 1982", per U.C.C. Section 3-505.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 43 of 116


You are  hereby placed on actual notice that I explicitly reserve
my right to rebut any and all factual presumptions which you have
made in support of your letter to me.

In your  letter, you  stated that you "will not respond to future
letters concerning  these same  issues".   I must remind you that
the Freedom of Information Act (5 U.S.C. 552(a) et seq.) does not
give you any choice in this matter.

The  law  mandates  that  you  supply  me  with  the  information
requested.   The documents which I am requesting are not exempted
from disclosure.

I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a maximum of $20.
If you  estimate that  the fees  will exceed  this limit,  please
inform me  first by  writing to  me, care of the mailing location
described below.

I fully  expect and  demand a response to this request within the
statutory time limits, as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i).

Please send your timely, written response, signed in pen and ink,
to the following location:

                         John E. Trumane
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic
                  NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt


Thank you  very much  for your  kind and earnest consideration of
this request,  and  for  your  due  diligence  in  providing  the
documents itemized above.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and  without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights

attachment:  copy of your letter to me dated "SEP 24 1982"


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 44 of 116


Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        November 14, 1982

Disclosure Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o P. O. Box 2900
Sacramento, California

Subject:  NOTICE and DEMAND

Dear Disclosure Officer:

I am  writing this  NOTICE and  DEMAND letter  as a  courtesy  to
inform you  that I  have refused  a letter from your office which
was  delivered   today  c/o   general  delivery  in  San  Rafael,
California.  This letter was refused and rejected, unopened, with
written instructions  to RETURN  TO SENDER  as shown at the upper
left corner of the envelope.

Evidently, you  have chosen  to ignore  the mailing  instructions
which are  clearly stated  on page 2 of my Freedom of Information
Act request, dated October 23, 1982 (a copy of which is attached,
for your  information).   I have highlighted the mailing location
which you must use in order to correspond with me in writing.

I am  forced to conclude, therefore, that your deliberate refusal
to follow  these simple  and reasonable  mailing instructions  is
evidence of  your bad  faith in this matter and constitutes proof
of your  failure to  comply with  all stated  requirements of  my
lawful FOIA  request.   You are  hereby warned that you are under
the legal  obligation of  good faith,  and that bad faith on your
part is synonymous with fraud.

Please also  be advised  that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept)  mail   from  you,  provided  that  it  conforms  to  the
requirements as  stated in my Freedom of Information Act request.
These requirements  must be met by your use of the proper mailing
destination on  envelopes and  on all  correspondence  and  other
documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.

Finally, I  hereby demand  written confirmation from you that the
receipt and  use of  envelopes and  their contents with ZIP codes
and/or two-letter  federal abbreviations  (e.g., "CA")  does  NOT
grant jurisdiction  over State  Citizens to  the Internal Revenue
Service, the  "United States"  or any of its agencies, assigns or
instrumentalities.

This written  confirmation must  be signed in pen and ink by you,
with your  true and  correct name/identification  (not an alias),
under penalties of perjury, as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 45 of 116


I am  making this  demand because I am a California State Citizen
(see 1:2:3,  4:2:1 and  3:2:1 in  the Constitution for the United
States of  America).   I am not a "citizen of the United States".
You are  expected to  know the  Law in  this California  Republic
which has  been interpreted  by the  California Supreme  Court as
follows:

     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
     States.
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


Please be  advised that  any attempts  to trick,  entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare  or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in  my original  FOIA, in  an unlawful  attempt on your
part to  grant jurisdiction  over me  to some  arbitrary  federal
district, will be further evidence of bad faith for which you may
be sued,  in the  event that  you attempt  to do  anything on the
basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.

Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your cooperation in this matter.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
Sovereign California Citizen
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice


enclosure:  true and correct copy of
            Freedom of Information Act
            request, dated 10/23/92


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 46 of 116


Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        March 31, 1983

Mr. Martin L. Agnostic
Revenue Agent
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 101 Lucas Valley Road
San Rafael, California Republic

Re:  Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Mr. Agnostic:

This is  my second  request under the Freedom of Information Act,
because I  have not  received a  lawful response to my first such
request (a copy of which is attached for your information).

Without dishonor,  I hereby request that, for calendar years 1980
and 1981,  you provide  me with  true and  correct copies  of the
following:

     (1)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I was a "United States
          citizen" or  a "citizen  of the United States" as those
          terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 C.F.R.;

     (2)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I was a "United States
          resident" or a "resident of the United States" as those
          terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 C.F.R.;

     (3)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I was "subject" to any
          provisions of  the Internal  Revenue Code (IRC) and its
          regulations (26 C.F.R.);

     (4)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I  was an "individual"
          as that term is used in Part I, Section 1 of the IRC;

     (5)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I  was an "individual"
          who was required to file a "Return Form No. 1040";

     (6)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations that I was a "person liable"
          for any taxes imposed by the IRC and its regulations;

     (7)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive  determinations   that  I   was  a  "person
          required" to make and file a return;


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 47 of 116


     (8)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that  I  received  "taxable
          income";

     (9)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I  was a "taxpayer" as
          that term is defined in the IRC;

     (10) your true  identification and  evidence of  your lawful
          delegated authority  to make  and  present  presumptive
          determinations about  me, as  required by  U.C.C. 3-505
          (now 3-501 in some States of the Union);

     (11) all genuine public documents which prove that Title 26,
          United States Code, has been enacted into positive law,
          thus giving  legal force  and effect  to Subtitle  F as
          required by IRC 7851(a)(6)(A);

     (12) all genuine  public  documents  which  prove  that  the
          Internal Revenue  Service was  established by an Act of
          Congress as  an agency,  bureau, department, section or
          "Service" under  the  Department  of  the  Treasury  as
          described in Title 31, United States Code;

     (13) all genuine  public documents  which  explain  why  the
          Internal Revenue  Service is  not listed  as an agency,
          bureau, department,  section  or  "Service"  under  the
          Department of  the Treasury  as described  in Title 31,
          United States Code;

     (14) a certified copy of "Treasury Delegation Order No. 91",
          the  IRS   "Service  Agreement"  with  the  Agency  for
          International Development.


You are  hereby placed  on actual  notice that  I have explicitly
reserved my  right to  rebut any  and all  presumptions which you
have made for the calendar years in question (1980 and 1981).

The  law  mandates  that  you  supply  me  with  the  information
requested.   The documents which I am requesting are not exempted
from disclosure.

I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a maximum of $20.
If you  estimate that  the fees  will exceed  this limit,  please
inform me  first by  writing to  me, care of the mailing location
described below.

Disclosure of  the requested  information to  me is in the public
interest because  it is  likely to  contribute  significantly  to
public understanding  of the  operations and  activities  of  the
Internal Revenue Service and is not primarily in my own interest.

I fully  expect and  demand a response to this request within the
statutory time limits, as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 48 of 116


Please send  your timely,  written response, signed by you in pen
and ink, under penalty of perjury as required of you by IRC 6065,
to the following mailing location:

                         John E. Trumane
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic
            NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)


Please be  advised that  I am  not a  "resident" of  the  federal
district known  as "CA"  and that I will refuse to accept any and
all   correspondence, mailed  from the  IRS or served by the IRS,
which  is   not  sent   to  the  proper  mailing  location  shown
immediately above.   This is to notify you in advance that I will
not accept IRS mail which utilizes ZIP codes.

Thank you  very much  for your  kind and earnest consideration of
this request,  and  for  your  due  diligence  in  providing  the
documents itemized above.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and  without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights

attachments:  copy of first FOIA request to Raymond A. Spillman,
               dated October 23, 1982 (no answer)
              copy of NOTICE and DEMAND to Disclosure Officer,
               dated November 14, 1982 (no answer)

copy:  Mark T. Extort/Revenue Officer


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 49 of 116


Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        March 31, 1983

Mr. Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic

Re:  Freedom of Information Act Request

Dear Mr. Extort:

This is  my second  request under the Freedom of Information Act,
because I  have not  received a  lawful response to my first such
request (a copy of which is attached for your information).

Without dishonor,  I hereby request that, for calendar years 1980
and 1981,  you provide  me with  true and  correct copies  of the
following:

     (1)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I was a "United States
          citizen" or  a "citizen  of the United States" as those
          terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 C.F.R.;

     (2)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I was a "United States
          resident" or a "resident of the United States" as those
          terms are defined in 26 U.S.C. and 26 C.F.R.;

     (3)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I was "subject" to any
          provisions of  the Internal  Revenue Code (IRC) and its
          regulations (CFR);

     (4)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I  was an "individual"
          as that term is used in Part I, Section 1 of the IRC;

     (5)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I  was an "individual"
          who was required to file a "Return Form No. 1040";

     (6)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations that I was a "person liable"
          for any taxes imposed by the IRC and its regulations;

     (7)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive  determinations   that  I   was  a  "person
          required" to make and file a return;


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 50 of 116


     (8)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that  I  received  "taxable
          income";

     (9)  all  genuine   documents  on   which  you   based   any
          presumptive determinations  that I  was a "taxpayer" as
          that term is defined in the IRC;

     (10) your true  identification and  evidence of  your lawful
          delegated authority  to make  and  present  presumptive
          determinations about  me, as  required by  U.C.C. 3-505
          (now 3-501 in some States of the Union);

     (11) all genuine public documents which prove that Title 26,
          United States Code, has been enacted into positive law,
          thus giving  legal force  and effect  to Subtitle  F as
          required by IRC 7851(a)(6)(A);

     (12) all genuine  public  documents  which  prove  that  the
          Internal Revenue  Service was  established by an Act of
          Congress as  an agency,  bureau, department, section or
          "Service" under  the  Department  of  the  Treasury  as
          described in Title 31, United States Code;

     (13) all genuine  public documents  which  explain  why  the
          Internal Revenue  Service is  not listed  as an agency,
          bureau, department,  section  or  "Service"  under  the
          Department of  the Treasury  as described  in Title 31,
          United States Code;

     (14) a certified copy of "Treasury Delegation Order No. 91",
          the  IRS   "Service  Agreement"  with  the  Agency  for
          International Development.


You are  hereby placed  on actual  notice that  I have explicitly
reserved my  right to  rebut any  and all  presumptions which you
have made for the calendar years in question (1980 and 1981).

The  law  mandates  that  you  supply  me  with  the  information
requested.   The documents which I am requesting are not exempted
from disclosure.

I am willing to pay fees for this request up to a maximum of $20.
If you  estimate that  the fees  will exceed  this limit,  please
inform me  first by  writing to  me, care of the mailing location
described below.

Disclosure of  the requested  information to  me is in the public
interest because  it is  likely to  contribute  significantly  to
public understanding  of the  operations and  activities  of  the
Internal Revenue Service and is not primarily in my own interest.

I fully  expect and  demand a response to this request within the
statutory time limits, as set forth in 5 U.S.C. 552(a)(6)(A)(i).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 51 of 116


Please send  your timely,  written response, signed by you in pen
and ink, under penalty of perjury as required of you by IRC 6065,
to the following mailing location:

                         John E. Trumane
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic
            NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)


Please be  advised that  I am  not a  "resident" of  the  federal
district known  as "CA"  and that I will refuse to accept any and
all   correspondence, mailed  from the  IRS or served by the IRS,
which  is   not  sent   to  the  proper  mailing  location  shown
immediately above.   This is to notify you in advance that I will
not accept IRS mail which utilizes ZIP codes.


Thank you  very much  for your  kind and earnest consideration of
this request,  and  for  your  due  diligence  in  providing  the
documents itemized above.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and  without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights

attachments:  copy of first FOIA request to Raymond A. Spillman,
               dated October 23, 1982 (no answer)
              copy of NOTICE and DEMAND to Disclosure Officer,
               dated November 14, 1982 (no answer)

copy:  Martin L. Agnostic/Revenue Agent


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 52 of 116


Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        April 6, 1983

Mr. Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic

Subject:  NOTICE and DEMAND

Dear Mr. Extort:

I am  writing this  NOTICE and  DEMAND letter  as a  courtesy  to
inform you  that I  have refused  a letter  from  you  which  was
delivered today  c/o general  delivery,  San  Rafael,  California
Republic.   This letter  was refused and rejected, unopened, with
written instructions  to RETURN  TO SENDER  as shown on the front
side of envelope.

Evidently, you  have deliberately  chosen to  ignore the  mailing
instructions which  are clearly stated on page 3 of my Freedom of
Information Act request, dated March 31, 1983 (a copy of which is
attached).   I have  highlighted the  mailing location  which you
must use in order to correspond with me in writing.

I am  forced to conclude, therefore, that your deliberate refusal
to follow  these simple  and reasonable  mailing instructions  is
evidence of  your bad  faith in this matter and constitutes proof
of your  failure to  comply with  all stated  requirements of  my
lawful FOIA  request.   You are  hereby warned that you are under
the legal  obligation of  good faith,  and that bad faith on your
part is synonymous with fraud:

     1-203  Obligation of Good Faith

     Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
     of good faith in its performance or enforcement.

                [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]


     1-201(19)  General Definitions

     "Good faith"  means  honesty  in  fact  in  the  conduct  or
     transaction concerned.

            [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 53 of 116


     Bad Faith.  The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
     or involving  actual or  constructive fraud,  or a design to
     mislead or  deceive another,  or a  neglect  or  refusal  to
     fulfill  some  duty  or  some  contractual  obligation,  not
     prompted by  an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
     but by some interested or sinister motive.  Term "bad faith"
     is not  simply bad  judgment or  negligence, but  rather  it
     implies the  conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
     purpose or  moral obliquity;    it  is  different  from  the
     negative idea  of negligence in that it contemplates a state
     of mind  affirmatively operating  with furtive design or ill
     will.  ...  An intentional tort which results from breach of
     duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
     contract.
                          [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     "The Federal  Tax Lien  Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
     101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
     lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
     developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."

                    [Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
                        [56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]


Please also  be advised  that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept)  mail   from  you,  provided  that  it  conforms  to  the
requirements as  stated in my Freedom of Information Act request.
These requirements  must be met by your use of the proper mailing
destination on  envelopes and  on all  correspondence  and  other
documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.


                      CONSPICUOUS WARNING:

I shall  view your  continued refusal  to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing  instructions as  evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will  be charged  with felony  mail  fraud  for  transmitting
evidence of  your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using
the  U.S.   Mail  for   fraudulent  purposes,   specifically  for
attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt.

Finally, I  hereby demand  written confirmation from you that the
receipt and  use of  IRS envelopes  and their  contents with  ZIP
codes and/or  two-letter federal  abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does
NOT grant  jurisdiction  over  State  Citizens  to  the  Internal
Revenue Service,  to the  "United  States",  or  to  any  of  its
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. This written confirmation
must be  signed in pen and ink by you, with your true and correct
name/identification (not  an alias),  under penalties of perjury,
as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065.

I am  making this  demand because  I  am  a  Free  Person  and  a
California State  Citizen, i.e.  a "Citizen  of one of the United
States" (see  1:2:3, 2:1:5,  3:2:1 and  4:2:1 in the Constitution
for the United States of America).  By birth and by definition, I
am not  a "citizen  of the  United States".   You are expected to
know  the  Law  in  this  California  Republic,  which  has  been
interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 54 of 116


     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
     States.
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


This decision  has never  been overturned.   Since the year 1868,
the federal  government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional  definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the  federal government  has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced  unlawful   menace  against   the  American  people  by
proceeding on  the basis  of the  erroneous presumption  that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by  representing the  so-called 14th  Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court  authorities and  other competent  legal scholars
have now  established that  it was  NOT lawfully  ratified.  (See
State v.  Phillips, 540  P.2d 936  (1975);   Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968);  28 Tulane Law Review 22;  11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484;   and  the Congressional  Record, June  13,  1967,
pages 15641-15646.)

Therefore, the  definition of  "citizen of the United States", as
found in  the 1866  Civil Rights  Act (14 Stat. 27), is still the
controlling definition  of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does  not apply  to people of the white race.  Read it for
yourself!

Furthermore,  the  failed  ratification  of  the  so-called  14th
Amendment means  that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by  the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because  Section   4  of  that  failed  amendment  contained  the
following clause:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 55 of 116


     Section 4.   The  validity of  the public debt of the United
     States, authorized  by law,  including  debts  incurred  for
     payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
     insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

                                  [text of failed 14th Amendment]


The office of U.S. Representative James A. Traficant now confirms
that the  "United States"  is in  Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that
the Congress  are the  Receivers in  bankruptcy.   For proof, see
Congressman Traficant's recent entry in the Congressional Record,
confirming this  bankruptcy.  Your attempts to enforce collection
of  payments  to  the  corporate  "United  States"  must  now  be
accompanied  by   a  clear  and  unambiguous  disclosure  of  the
bankruptcy of this "United States".

 I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.

Moreover, your  failure to  recognize the  California Republic on
your outgoing  mail constitutes  prima  facie  evidence  of  your
premeditated willingness  to abrogate  Lawful provisions  of  the
Constitution for  the United  States of  America, which  you  are
obligated to  obey and  which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:

     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion;

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                           [Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]


I HEREBY  DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN  OATH TO  UPHOLD AND  DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA.   LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.

Please be  advised that  any attempts  to trick,  entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare  or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in  my original  FOIA, in  an unlawful  attempt on your
part to  grant jurisdiction  over me  to some  arbitrary  federal
district, will be further evidence of bad faith for which you may
be sued,  in the  event that  you attempt  to do  anything on the
basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.

Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your full cooperation in this matter.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
Sovereign California Citizen


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 56 of 116


enclosure:  true and correct copy of
            Freedom of Information Act
            request, dated 03/31/93

copy:  Mr. Jerry Garcia,
       U.S. Postmaster


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 57 of 116


Certified Mail #P 028 299 916           c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested                San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        June 6, 1983

Disclosure Officer (SA-5201)
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o USPS Post Office Box 2900
Sacramento, California Republic

Subject:  NOTICE and DEMAND

Dear Disclosure Officer:

I am  writing this  NOTICE and  DEMAND letter  as a  courtesy  to
inform you  that I  have refused  a letter  from  you  which  was
delivered recently  c/o general  delivery, San Rafael, California
Republic.   This letter  was refused and rejected, unopened, with
written instructions  to RETURN  TO SENDER  as shown on the front
side of envelope (see attached).

Evidently, you  have deliberately  chosen to  ignore the  mailing
instructions which  are clearly stated on page 3 of my Freedom of
Information Act  request, dated October 23, 1982 (a copy of which
is attached).   In  doing so,  you have  also failed to answer my
formal NOTICE  and DEMAND letter, dated November 14, 1982 (a copy
of which  is also  attached).  I  have  highlighted  the  mailing
location which  you must  use in  order to  correspond with me in
writing.

I am  forced to conclude, therefore, that your deliberate refusal
to follow  these simple  and reasonable  mailing instructions  is
evidence of  your bad  faith in this matter and constitutes proof
of your  failure to  comply with  all stated  requirements of  my
lawful FOIA  request.   You are  hereby warned that you are under
the legal  obligation of  good faith,  and that bad faith on your
part is synonymous with fraud:

     1-203  Obligation of Good Faith

     Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
     of good faith in its performance or enforcement.

                [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]


     1-201(19)  General Definitions

     "Good faith"  means  honesty  in  fact  in  the  conduct  or
     transaction concerned.

            [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 58 of 116


     Bad Faith.  The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
     or involving  actual or  constructive fraud,  or a design to
     mislead or  deceive another,  or a  neglect  or  refusal  to
     fulfill  some  duty  or  some  contractual  obligation,  not
     prompted by  an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
     but by some interested or sinister motive.  Term "bad faith"
     is not  simply bad  judgment or  negligence, but  rather  it
     implies the  conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
     purpose or  moral obliquity;    it  is  different  from  the
     negative idea  of negligence in that it contemplates a state
     of mind  affirmatively operating  with furtive design or ill
     will.  ...  An intentional tort which results from breach of
     duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
     contract.
                          [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     "The Federal  Tax Lien  Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
     101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
     lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
     developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."

                    [Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
                        [56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]


Please also  be advised  that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept)  mail   from  you,  provided  that  it  conforms  to  the
requirements as  stated in my Freedom of Information Act request.
These requirements  must be met by your use of the proper mailing
destination on  envelopes and  on all  correspondence  and  other
documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.


                      CONSPICUOUS WARNING:

I shall  view your  continued refusal  to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing  instructions as  evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will  be charged  with felony  mail  fraud  for  transmitting
evidence of  your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using
the  U.S.   Mail  for   fraudulent  purposes,   specifically  for
attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt.

Finally, I  hereby demand  written confirmation from you that the
receipt and  use of  IRS envelopes  and their  contents with  ZIP
codes and/or  two-letter federal  abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does
NOT grant  jurisdiction  over  State  Citizens  to  the  Internal
Revenue Service,  to the  "United  States",  or  to  any  of  its
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. This written confirmation
must be  signed in pen and ink by you, with your true and correct
name/identification (not  an alias),  under penalties of perjury,
as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065.

I am  making this  demand because  I  am  a  Free  Person  and  a
California State  Citizen, i.e.  a "Citizen  of one of the United
States" (see  1:2:3, 2:1:5,  3:2:1 and  4:2:1 in the Constitution
for the United States of America).  By birth and by definition, I
am not  a "citizen  of the  United States".   You are expected to
know  the  Law  in  this  California  Republic,  which  has  been
interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 59 of 116


     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
     States.
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


This decision  has never  been overturned.   Since the year 1868,
the federal  government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional  definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the  federal government  has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced  unlawful   menace  against   the  American  people  by
proceeding on  the basis  of the  erroneous presumption  that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by  representing the  so-called 14th  Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court  authorities and  other competent  legal scholars
have now  established that  it was  NOT lawfully  ratified.  (See
State v.  Phillips, 540  P.2d 936  (1975);   Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968);  28 Tulane Law Review 22;  11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484;   and  the Congressional  Record, June  13,  1967,
pages 15641-15646.)

Therefore, the  definition of  "citizen of the United States", as
found in  the 1866  Civil Rights  Act (14 Stat. 27), is still the
controlling definition  of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does  not apply  to people of the white race.  Read it for
yourself!  Please do not make the mistake of concluding that I am
advocating racism or racial superiority here.  It is the Congress
who have  maintained these racial distinctions right in their own
public laws (e.g. see Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981 thru 1983).

Furthermore,  the  failed  ratification  of  the  so-called  14th
Amendment means  that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by  the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because  Section   4  of  that  failed  amendment  contained  the
following clause:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 60 of 116


     Section 4.   The  validity of  the public debt of the United
     States, authorized  by law,  including  debts  incurred  for
     payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
     insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

                                  [text of failed 14th Amendment]


It is  also essential  that you understand your own tenuous legal
position in  light of  the recent  official announcement that the
United States  is bankrupt.     The office of U.S. Representative
James A.  Traficant from  Ohio  now  confirms  that  the  "United
States"  is  in  Chapter  11  bankruptcy.    During  a  televised
interview on the evening of March 17, 1993, Congressman Traficant
officially admitted  that the  United States  is now bankrupt and
that the  Congress are  now the  trustees in  receivership.   His
statements during this televised interview have been confirmed by
published  repetition   of  this   announcement  in   the   House
Congressional Record,  dated March  17, 1993,  Vol. 139,  No. 33.
Your attempts  to enforce collection of payments to the corporate
"United  States"   must  now   be  accompanied  by  a  clear  and
unambiguous disclosure of the bankruptcy of this "United States".

 I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.

Moreover, your  failure to  recognize the  California Republic on
your outgoing  mail constitutes  prima  facie  evidence  of  your
premeditated willingness  to abrogate  Lawful provisions  of  the
Constitution for  the United  States of  America, which  you  are
obligated to  obey and  which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:

     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion;

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                           [Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]


I HEREBY  DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN  OATH TO  UPHOLD AND  DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA.   LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.

Please be  advised that  any attempts  to trick,  entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare  or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in  my original  FOIA, in  an unlawful  attempt on your
part to  grant jurisdiction  over me  to some  arbitrary  federal
district, will be further evidence of bad faith for which you may
be sued,  in the  event that  you attempt  to do  anything on the
basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.

Thank you  in advance for your good faith, your consideration and
your full cooperation in this matter.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 61 of 116


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
Sovereign Sui Juris

attached:   photocopy of annotated
            envelope, refused and returned

            true and correct copy of
            Freedom of Information Act
            request, dated 10/23/92

            true and correct copy of
            NOTICE and DEMAND
            letter, dated 11/14/92


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 62 of 116


Certified U.S. Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        June 3, 1983

Commissioner of Internal Revenue
Ben Franklin Station
c/o USPS P.O. Box 929
Washington, D.C.

Subject:  FOIA Appeal

Dear Commissioner:

This is an appeal under the Freedom of Information Act.

I requested  documents from  your agency  under  the  Freedom  of
Information Act  on October  23, 1982 and March 31, 1983.  Copies
of these requests are attached, for your information.

As of  the applicable  statutory deadlines,  your agency  had not
responded by  mail to  the proper  mailing locations  (i.e. "last
known addresses") shown in my FOIA requests.

On November  14, 1982  and again  on  April  6,  1983,  I  placed
appropriate employees  of your  agency on written notice of their
failure to  comply with all stated requirements of my lawful FOIA
requests (see attached).

The documents  which I have requested must be disclosed under the
FOIA because  I now  have good cause to believe that the Internal
Revenue Service  is  proceeding  on  the  basis  of  demonstrably
erroneous presumptions  about my  lawful status  for purposes  of
U.S. federal income taxation.

Disclosure of  the documents  which I  requested is  also in  the
public  interest   because  they   are   likely   to   contribute
significantly to  public  understanding  of  the  operations  and
activities of  the Internal Revenue Service, and is not primarily
for  my  own  interest.    I  continue  to  conduct  research  by
assembling documentation  about the  Constitution and laws of the
"United States" (all three definitions), and it is important that
the documentation  contain information  that is  as  accurate  as
possible.

I am  also a  published author  on the  subject of federal income
taxation, and  I have  an ethical  obligation to my readers to do
whatever I  can to  ensure that my research findings are based on
demonstrable facts, and public laws that have been duly enacted.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 63 of 116


For your  convenience, I  have enclosed  a self-addressed stamped
envelope (SASE)  for mailing  your response  back to  me.   Until
further written  notice from  me, please  update your records and
utilize the  mailing location  shown on the mailing label of this
SASE.   Notice to  principals is  notice to agents, and notice to
agents is notice to principals.

While I  am on  the subject  of mailing  locations, would  it  be
possible for  you to  confirm  or  deny,  in  writing,  that  the
Internal Revenue  Service refuses  to  recognize  the  California
Republic as a matter of official policy?  If the Internal Revenue
Service does  refuse to  recognize the  California Republic  as a
matter of  official policy, would you please provide me with your
justification in Law for this refusal?

You are  required by  the Freedom  of Information  Act to  make a
decision on  this  appeal  within  twenty  (20)  days  (excluding
Saturdays, Sundays and federal holidays).

Thank you very much for your consideration of this appeal.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
all rights reserved

attachments:   Letter to Raymond A. Spillman, October 23, 1982
               Letter to Disclosure Officer, November 14, 1982
               Letter to Martin L. Agnostic, March 31, 1983
               Letter to Mark T. Extort, March 31, 1983
               Letter to Mark T. Extort, April 6, 1983
               Letter to Mark T. Extort, April 12, 1983

copies:  Lynn Woolsey, House of Representatives
         files


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 64 of 116


Certified Mail #P 028 299 896           c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested                San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        June 6, 1983

Mark T. Extort
Revenue Officer
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

Subject:  NOTICE and DEMAND

Dear Disclosure Officer:

I am  writing this  NOTICE and  DEMAND letter  as a  courtesy  to
inform you  that I  have refused  a letter from your office which
was  delivered   recently  c/o   general  delivery,  San  Rafael,
California Republic.   This  letter  was  refused  and  rejected,
unopened, with  written instructions to RETURN TO SENDER as shown
on the front side of the envelope (see attached).

Evidently, either  you and/or  other employee(s)  of your  agency
have deliberately chosen to ignore the mailing instructions which
are clearly stated on page 11 of my Rebuttal letter to you, dated
April 12,  1983 (a  copy of  which is  attached).   In so  doing,
either you  and/or other  employee(s) of  your agency  have  also
failed to answer my formal NOTICE and DEMAND letter to you, dated
April 6,  1983 (a  copy of  which is  also  attached).    In  the
attached copy  of my  Rebuttal letter to you of April 12, 1983, I
have highlighted the mailing location which you must use in order
to correspond  with me  in writing.   From  now on,  I will  also
require that  you add  a final  line which reads "zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)" to your "last known address" for me (see above).

I am  forced to  conclude, therefore, that the deliberate refusal
by you  and/or other  employee(s) of  your agency to follow these
simple and  reasonable mailing  instructions is  evidence of your
bad faith in this matter and constitutes proof of your failure to
comply with all "last known address" requirements as stated in my
lawful FOIA  requests, in my lawful NOTICE and DEMAND, and in all
other lawful documents previously served on your agency.  You are
hereby warned  that you  are under  the legal  obligation of good
faith, and that bad faith on your part is synonymous with fraud:

     1-203  Obligation of Good Faith

     Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
     of good faith in its performance or enforcement.

                [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 65 of 116


     1-201(19)  General Definitions

     "Good faith"  means  honesty  in  fact  in  the  conduct  or
     transaction concerned.

            [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))


     Bad Faith.  The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
     or involving  actual or  constructive fraud,  or a design to
     mislead or  deceive another,  or a  neglect  or  refusal  to
     fulfill  some  duty  or  some  contractual  obligation,  not
     prompted by  an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
     but by some interested or sinister motive.  Term "bad faith"
     is not  simply bad  judgment or  negligence, but  rather  it
     implies the  conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
     purpose or  moral obliquity;    it  is  different  from  the
     negative idea  of negligence in that it contemplates a state
     of mind  affirmatively operating  with furtive design or ill
     will.  ...  An intentional tort which results from breach of
     duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
     contract.

                          [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     "The Federal  Tax Lien  Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
     101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
     lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
     developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."

                    [Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
                        [56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]


Please also  be advised  that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept)  mail   from  you,  provided  that  it  conforms  to  the
requirements as  stated in my Freedom of Information Act request.
These requirements  must be met by your use of the proper mailing
destination on  envelopes and  on all  correspondence  and  other
documents enclosed  within mailing  envelopes.   To repeat, I now
require you  to add  "zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)" to your "last
known address" for me, until further notice from me.


                      CONSPICUOUS WARNING:

I shall  view your  continued refusal  to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing  instructions as  evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will  be charged  with felony  mail  fraud  for  transmitting
evidence of  your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using
the  U.S.   Mail  for   fraudulent  purposes,   specifically  for
attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt.

Finally, I  hereby demand  written confirmation from you that the
receipt and  use of  IRS envelopes  and their  contents with  ZIP
codes and/or  two-letter federal  abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does
NOT grant  jurisdiction  over  State  Citizens  to  the  Internal
Revenue Service,  to the  "United  States",  or  to  any  of  its


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 66 of 116


agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. This written confirmation
must be  signed in pen and ink by you, with your true and correct
name/identification (not  an alias),  under penalties of perjury,
as required of you by 26 U.S.C. 6065.

I am  making this  demand because  I  am  a  Free  Person  and  a
California State  Citizen, i.e.  a "Citizen  of one of the United
States" (see  1:2:3, 2:1:5,  3:2:1 and  4:2:1 in the Constitution
for the United States of America).  By birth and by definition, I
am not  a "citizen  of the  United States".   You are expected to
know  the  Law  in  this  California  Republic,  which  has  been
interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:

     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
     States.
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


This decision  has never  been overturned.   Since the year 1868,
the federal  government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional  definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the  federal government  has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced  unlawful   menace  against   the  American  people  by
proceeding on  the basis  of the  erroneous presumption  that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by  representing the  so-called 14th  Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court  authorities and  other competent  legal scholars
have now  established that  it was  NOT lawfully  ratified.  (See
State v.  Phillips, 540  P.2d 936  (1975);   Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968);  28 Tulane Law Review 22;  11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484;   and  the Congressional  Record, June  13,  1967,
pages 15641-15646.)

Therefore, the  definition of  "citizen of the United States", as
found in  the 1866  Civil Rights  Act (14 Stat. 27), is still the
controlling definition  of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does  not apply  to people of the white race.  Read it for
yourself!  Please do not make the mistake of concluding that I am
advocating racism or racial superiority here.  It is the Congress
who have  maintained these racial distinctions right in their own
public laws (e.g. see Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981 thru 1983).

Furthermore,  the  failed  ratification  of  the  so-called  14th
Amendment means  that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by  the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because  Section   4  of  that  failed  amendment  contained  the
following clause:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 67 of 116


     Section 4.   The  validity of  the public debt of the United
     States, authorized  by law,  including  debts  incurred  for
     payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
     insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

                                  [text of failed 14th Amendment]


It is  also essential  that you understand your own tenuous legal
position in  light of  the recent  official announcement that the
United States  is bankrupt.     The office of U.S. Representative
James A.  Traficant from  Ohio  now  confirms  that  the  "United
States"  is  in  Chapter  11  bankruptcy.    During  a  televised
interview on the evening of March 17, 1993, Congressman Traficant
officially admitted  that the  United States  is now bankrupt and
that the  Congress are  now the  trustees in  receivership.   His
statements during this televised interview have been confirmed by
published  repetition   of  this   announcement  in   the   House
Congressional Record,  dated March  17, 1993,  Vol. 139,  No. 33.
Your attempts  to enforce collection of payments to the corporate
"United  States"   must  now   be  accompanied  by  a  clear  and
unambiguous disclosure of the bankruptcy of this "United States".
Historical records  now indicate  that this bankruptcy dates from
the year 1933 (e.g. see House Joint Resolution No. 192), and that
some federal judges have taken a secret oath to conceal it.


 I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.

Moreover, your  failure to  recognize the  California Republic on
your outgoing  mail constitutes  prima  facie  evidence  of  your
premeditated willingness  to abrogate  Lawful provisions  of  the
Constitution for  the United  States of  America, which  you  are
obligated to  obey and  which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:

     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion;

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                           [Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]


I HEREBY  DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN  OATH TO  UPHOLD AND  DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA.   LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.

Please be  advised that  any attempts  to trick,  entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare  or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in  my original  FOIA, in  an unlawful  attempt on your
part to  grant jurisdiction  over me  to some  arbitrary  federal
district, will be further evidence of bad faith for which you may
be sued,  in the  event that  you attempt  to do  anything on the
basis of such incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 68 of 116


Thank you  in advance for your good faith, your consideration and
your full cooperation in this matter.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
Sovereign Sui Juris

attached:   photocopy of annotated
            envelope, refused and returned

            true and correct copy of Rebuttal
            letter to Mark T. Extort
            dated 4/12/93

            true and correct copy of NOTICE and DEMAND
            letter to Mark T. Extort
            dated 4/6/93


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 69 of 116


Registered U.S. Mail #R 611 840 636
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        March 19, 1984

                        NOTICE and DEMAND

Mark T. Extort
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

Dear Mr. Extort:

I am  writing this  NOTICE and  DEMAND letter  as a  courtesy  to
inform you that I have refused two letters from your office which
were  delivered   recently  c/o  general  delivery,  San  Rafael,
California Republic.  One letter was certified mail and the other
was standard  first-class mail.   These  letters were refused and
rejected, unopened, with written instructions to RETURN TO SENDER
as shown on the front side of the envelope (see attached).


Notice of Correspondence Location

Please be  advised, once  again, that  from this  point forward I
demand that  all correspondence  from you must be:  (1) signed by
you  in  pen  and  ink  with  your  true  and  correct  name  and
identification (not an alias), (2) certified by you under penalty
of perjury  in conformance  with 28 U.S.C. 1746 and IRC 6065 and,
(3) routed to the following mailing location:

                   John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
                   Citizen of California state
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic
                  zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)


Evidently, either  you and/or  other employee(s)  of your  agency
have deliberately  refused to  follow  the  mailing  instructions
which were  clearly stated  on page  11 of  my Rebuttal letter to
you, dated  April 12,  1983 (see  attached).  In so doing, either
you and/or  other employee(s)  of your agency have also failed to
answer my formal NOTICE and DEMAND letters to you, dated April 6,
1983 and  June 6, 1983 (copies of which are also attached).  From
now on,  I will also demand that you add a final line which reads
"zip code  exempt (DMM  122.32)" to your "last known address" for
me (see  above).   Please note  that the  Post Office  Box in San
Rafael, California Republic, has been closed.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 70 of 116


As a  courtesy to you, in order to save your agency money, and to
demonstrate my  own good faith and my sincere desire to read your
written communications,  enclosed please  find  a  self-addressed
stamped envelope  (SASE) bearing  $2.90 in  prepaid  postage  for
Priority U.S.  Mail.   This envelope  bears the  correct  mailing
location at which I agree to receive (but not necessarily accept)
mail from  you and  from the  other employee(s)  of your  agency,
until further notice.

Please also  take notice that the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court
recently utilized an identical SASE to transmit correspondence to
me without any difficulty whatsoever, and the U.S. Postal Service
delivered this  same  SASE  without  any  difficulty  whatsoever.
Therefore, the  mailing location  shown on  the enclosed  SASE is
valid and  lawful, constituting  further evidence  still of  your
"Bad Faith"  in this  matter.   As proof of my good faith, I have
attached a  photocopy of the delivered envelope from the Clerk of
the U.S. Supreme Court.

I am  forced to  conclude, therefore,  that  the  consistent  and
deliberate refusal by you and/or other employee(s) of your agency
to follow  these simple,  reasonable and  entirely lawful mailing
instructions is  evidence of  your bad  faith in  this matter and
constitutes proof  of your failure to comply with all "last known
address" requirements as stated in my lawful FOIA requests, in my
lawful NOTICE  and  DEMAND  letters,  and  in  all  other  lawful
documents previously  served on  your agency.    You  are  hereby
warned that you are under the legal obligation of good faith, and
that bad faith on your part is synonymous with fraud:

     "The Federal  Tax Lien  Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
     101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
     lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
     developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."

                    [Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
                        [56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]


     1-203  Obligation of Good Faith

     Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
     of good faith in its performance or enforcement.

                [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]


     1-201(19)  General Definitions

     "Good faith"  means  honesty  in  fact  in  the  conduct  or
     transaction concerned.

            [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))


     Bad Faith.  The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
     or involving  actual or  constructive fraud,  or a design to
     mislead or  deceive another,  or a  neglect  or  refusal  to
     fulfill  some  duty  or  some  contractual  obligation,  not
     prompted by  an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
     but by some interested or sinister motive.  Term "bad faith"
     is not  simply bad  judgment or  negligence, but  rather  it
     implies the  conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
     purpose or  moral obliquity;    it  is  different  from  the
     negative idea  of negligence in that it contemplates a state
     of mind  affirmatively operating  with furtive design or ill
     will.  ...  An intentional tort which results from breach of
     duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
     contract.
                          [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
                                                 [emphasis added]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 71 of 116


Please also  be advised  that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail  from you,  provided that  it conforms to the lawful
requirements as  stated above.  These requirements must be met by
your use  of the  proper mailing location on envelopes and on all
correspondence  and   other  documents  enclosed  within  mailing
envelopes.   To repeat, I now require you to add "zip code exempt
(DMM 122.32)"  to your "last known address" for me, until further
notice from me.


                      CONSPICUOUS WARNING:

I shall  view your  continued refusal  to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing  instructions as  evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes.   For this  reason, you  are hereby warned that you can
and will  be charged  with mail  fraud (see 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1346)
for sending  evidence of  your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail,
and for using the U.S. Mail for fraudulent purposes, specifically
for attempting  to enforce  collection of  a  fraudulent  federal
debt.

Finally, I  hereby demand  written confirmation from you that the
receipt and  use of  IRS envelopes  and their  contents with  ZIP
codes and/or  two-letter federal  abbreviations (e.g.  "CA") does
NOT grant  jurisdiction  over  state  Citizens  to  the  Internal
Revenue Service,  Inc., to  the "United States", or to any of the
agencies, assigns  or instrumentalities  of the  "United States",
when  jurisdiction  would  otherwise  be  lacking.  This  written
confirmation must be signed in pen and ink by you, with your true
and correct  name/identification (not  an alias), under penalties
of perjury,  as  required  of  you  by  26  U.S.C.  6065  and  in
conformance with 28 U.S.C. 1746.

I am  making this  demand because  I  am  a  Free  Person  and  a
California state  Citizen, i.e.  a "Citizen  of one of the States
United" (see  1:2:2, 1:2:3,  1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the
Constitution for  the United States of America).  By birth and by
definition, I  am not  a "citizen of the United States".  You are
expected to  know the  Law in this California Republic, which has
been interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:

     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
     States.
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 72 of 116


This decision  has never  been overturned.   Since the year 1868,
the federal  government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional  definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the  federal government  has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced  unlawful   menace  against   the  American  people  by
proceeding on  the basis  of the  erroneous presumption  that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by  representing the  so-called 14th  Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court  authorities and  other competent  legal scholars
have now  established that  it was  NOT lawfully  ratified.  (See
State v.  Phillips, 540  P.2d 936  (1975);   Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968);  28 Tulane Law Review 22;  11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484;  Congressional Record, 6/13/67, pgs. 15641-15646.)

Therefore, the  definition of  "citizen of the United States", as
found in  the 1866  Civil Rights  Act (14 Stat. 27), is still the
controlling definition  of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does  not apply  to people of the white race.  Read it for
yourself!  Please do not make the mistake of concluding that I am
advocating racism or racial superiority here.  It is the Congress
who have  maintained these racial distinctions right in their own
public laws (e.g. see Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981 thru 1983).

The failed  ratification of  the so-called  14th Amendment  means
that all  Americans, including also those who are employed by the
federal and  State governments, are entirely free to question the
validity of the public debt of the United States, because Section
4 of that failed amendment contained the following clause:

     Section 4.   The  validity of  the public debt of the United
     States, authorized  by law,  including  debts  incurred  for
     payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
     insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

                                  [text of failed 14th Amendment]


It is  also essential  that you understand your own tenuous legal
position in  light of  the official  announcement that the United
States is bankrupt.    The office of U.S. Representative James A.
Traficant from  Ohio has confirmed that the "United States" is in
Chapter 11  bankruptcy.   During a  televised  interview  on  the
evening of  March  17,  1993,  Congressman  Traficant  officially
admitted that  the United  States is  now bankrupt  and that  the
Congress are  now the  trustees in  receivership.  His statements
during this  televised interview have been confirmed by published
repetition  of  this  announcement  in  the  House  Congressional
Record, dated March 17, 1993, Vol. 139, No. 33.  Your attempts to


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 73 of 116


enforce collection  of payments  to the corporate "United States"
must now  be accompanied by a clear and unambiguous disclosure of
the bankruptcy  of this  "United States".  Historical records now
indicate that  this bankruptcy dates from the year 1933 (e.g. see
House Joint  Resolution No.  192), and  that some  federal judges
have taken a secret oath to conceal it.

 I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.

Moreover, your  failure to  recognize the  California Republic on
your outgoing  mail constitutes  prima  facie  evidence  of  your
premeditated willingness  to abrogate  Lawful provisions  of  the
Constitution for  the United  States of  America, which  you  are
obligated to  obey and  which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:

     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion;

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                           [Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]


I HEREBY  DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR LAWFUL  DELEGATION OF  AUTHORITY AND  OF YOUR SOLEMN OATH TO
UPHOLD AND  DEFEND THE  CONSTITUTION FOR  THE  UNITED  STATES  OF
AMERICA.   LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH THE IRS BINDS YOU
TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.

Please be  advised that  any attempts  to trick,  entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare  or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified above  (see NOTICE  OF CORRESPONDENCE  LOCATION), in an
unlawful attempt  on your  part to  grant jurisdiction over me to
some arbitrary  federal district, will be further evidence of bad
faith for which you may be sued, in the event that you attempt to
do anything  on the  basis of  such incorrectly addressed mail or
correspondence.

Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your full cooperation in this matter.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Sovereign California Citizen

attached:   photocopy of annotated
            envelope, refused and returned

            photocopy of SASE used by
            Clerk of U.S. Supreme Court

            true and correct copy of NOTICE and DEMAND


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 74 of 116


            letter to Mark T. Extort
            dated 6/6/93

            true and correct copy of NOTICE and DEMAND
            letter to Mark T. Extort
            dated 4/6/93

            true and correct copy of Rebuttal
            letter to Mark T. Extort
            dated 4/12/93


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 75 of 116


Registered U.S. Mail #R xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        March 19, 1984

                        NOTICE and DEMAND
                        for Exhibition of
                     DELEGATION OF AUTHORITY

Mark T. Extort
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

Dear Mr. Extort:


Demand for Exhibition of Authority

This is  my formal demand that you exhibit your lawful delegation
of authority  by transmitting  two certified copies of same to me
by means  of the enclosed mailing envelope, which has the correct
mailing location and $2.90 in prepaid postage for Priority Mail.


Notice of Deadline

I hereby  demand that  these certified  copies be  delivered  c/o
general delivery,  as shown  above, no  later than  5:00 p.m.  on
Monday, March 28, 1984.  Certification must comply with 28 U.S.C.
1746 (subsection (1) or (2) as appropriate for the signer).


Notice of Default

If you  do not  comply with  this lawful  demand on or before the
stated deadline,  then the  doctrine of  estoppel by acquiescence
will prevail and I will be entitled to the conclusive presumption
that you  cannot  produce  proof  of  any  lawful  delegation  of
authority originating  from the  Secretary of  the United  States
Department of the Treasury (see Title 31, United States Code).


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Sovereign California Citizen


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 76 of 116


Registered U.S. Mail #R _______________
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic

                                        March 31, 1984

                        NOTICE of DEFAULT

Mark T. Extort
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o 515 Northgate Drive, Suite 200
San Rafael, California Republic

Dear Mr. Extort:

Sir, you  are in  default.   On March  19, 1984, I transmitted to
you, via  Registered U.S.  Mail, my lawful notice and demand that
you exhibit  written evidence of your delegation of authority and
your solemn  oath to  uphold and  defend the Constitution for the
United States of America.

Those letters demanded that you exhibit your lawful delegation of
authority and  your solemn  oath of  office by  transmitting  two
certified copies  of same  to me by means of the mailing envelope
which was enclosed and which had the correct mailing location and
$2.90 in  prepaid postage for Priority Mail.  The stated deadline
for exhibition  of your  lawful delegation  of authority and your
solemn oath of office was 5:00 p.m. on Monday, March 28, 1984.

Mr. Extort, you have now failed to comply with this lawful notice
and demand.   At  the precise moment of the deadline, I requested
all three  employees of  the U.S. Postal Service in San Rafael to
inspect USPS  Post Office  Box xxxx  for any  envelopes from  the
"Internal Revenue  Service".   All three employees were witnesses
to the fact that there was none.

Since you did not comply with this lawful demand on or before the
stated deadline,  the doctrine  of estoppel  by acquiescence  now
prevails.  Therefore, I am entitled to the conclusive presumption
that you cannot exhibit proof of any solemn oath of office nor of
any lawful delegation of authority originating from the Secretary
of the U.S. Department of the Treasury (see Title 31, U.S.C.).


Certified per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1) by:


/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Sovereign California Citizen

copies:  Eugene A. Lynchburg, United States District Judge
         United States Postal Service, Terra Linda


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 77 of 116


Recorded U.S. Mail #A xxx xxx xxx
Dated: April 12, 1983

John E. Trumane
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
united States of America
ZIP code exempt (DMM 122.32)


                   AFFIDAVIT OF APPLICABLE LAW
                AND DENIAL OF SPECIFIC LIABILITY
                    FOR FEDERAL INCOME TAXES
               DURING CALENDAR YEARS 1980 AND 1981


CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC   )
                            )
MARIN COUNTY                )


                            PREAMBLE

     The undersigned Affiant, John E. Trumane, is of majority age
and of  sound mind, and has researched the laws as stated herein,
and is  competent to  testify as  to his  personal knowledge  and
belief of the truth of all the following:

     1.   That, during  calendar years 1980 and 1981, the Affiant
was a Sovereign Citizen of the California Republic, which was one
of the States of the Union of several States;  that, as such, his
birth and  declared political  status placed  him in the class of
natural born  Persons who were non-immigrant "nonresident aliens"
with respect  to the  "United States" as those terms were defined
by  the  Internal  Revenue  Code  (hereinafter  "IRC"),  Sections
865(g)(1)(B), 7701(b)(1)(B), 7701(a)(9) and 7701(a)(10);

     2.   That  Congress,   acting  in  its  municipal  capacity,
enacted IRC  Subchapter N  of Chapter 1, in order to separate the
50 Union  States from  the "United  States" (i.e. the District of
Columbia and its Territories, Possessions and Enclaves);

     3.   That a cursory examination of said Subchapter N reveals
that all "gross income" received from sources within the 50 Union
States was  defined as  "Income From  Sources Without  the United
States" (IRC  Section 862);  that all income derived from sources
within the  District of  Columbia (i.e.  the "United States"), or
"effectively connected  with a  United States trade or business",
was income from sources within the "United States";

     4.   That everyone  who inhabited  the 50  Union States, who
was neither  a "citizen  of the  United States"  nor a  "resident
alien", was by definition a "nonresident alien", as that term was
defined at IRC 7701(b)(1)(B) (see Treasury Decision 2313);

     5.   That the  Affiant was  not a  "resident alien", as that
term was defined at IRC 7701(b)(1)(A), because he did not satisfy

the substantial  presence test,  because he  was  never  lawfully
admitted for permanent residence, and because he did not elect to
be treated as a "resident";


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 78 of 116


     6.   That all  compensation received  by the Affiant for his
labor during  calendar years  1980  and  1981  was  from  sources
without, and  not effectively connected with, the "United States"
(i.e. the  District of Columbia, its Territories, Possessions and
Enclaves);

     7.   That Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, defined the
term "United  States" to  mean  "...  the  territory  over  which
sovereignty of the United States extends ....";

     8.   That Citizens  of one  of the several Union States were
those who  were born or naturalized within the "freely associated
compact states" (i.e. 50 Union States), as that term was utilized
by Congress at 28 U.S.C. Section 297, as lawfully amended;

     9.   That "United  States citizens"  were those  persons who
were citizens  of the District of Columbia and resident any place
in the  world,  and  those  people  who  were  residents  of  any
territory  which   was  subject   to  the  exclusive  legislative
jurisdiction  of   the  "United   States",  which   included  the
Territories, Possessions,  Enclaves and  the Federal  States (see
Title 4  U.S.C., Chapter  4, Section  110(d), for a definition of
"Federal States");

     10.  That, for  purposes of  the IRC,  Subtitle A,  Congress
created a  "word of  art" definition  for the  terms "State"  and
"United States";    said  terms  were  defined  at  IRC  Sections
7701(a)(9) and 7701(a)(10) as follows:

     (9)  United States. -- The term "United States" when used in
          a geographical  sense includes  only the States and the
          District of Columbia.

     (10) State. --  The  term  "State"  shall  be  construed  to
          include  the   District   of   Columbia,   where   such
          construction is  necessary to  carry out  provisions of
          this title.
                                                 [emphasis added]


     11.  That Congress imposed a tax on petroleum at IRC Section
4611, and  used a different "word of art" definition for the term
"United States"  in that Section;   said "word of art" definition
was found at IRC 4612(a)(4)(A), to wit:

     (4)  United States. --

     (A)   In General.  -- The  term "United States" means the 50
          States, the  District of  Columbia, the Commonwealth of
          Puerto Rico,  any possession  of the United States, the
          Commonwealth of  the Northern  Mariana Islands, and the
          Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 79 of 116


     12.  That Congress  excluded the  50 Union  States from  the
definition of  "United States",  for purposes  of Subtitle A, and
defined all "income" from these 50 States as "Income From Sources
Without the United States", at IRC Section 862;

     13.  That Congress stated at IRC Section 864(c)(4)(A) that:

     ... no income, gain, or loss from sources without the United
     States shall  be treated  as effectively  connected with the
     conduct of a trade or business within the United States.


     14.  That, during  calendar years 1980 and 1981, the Affiant
was neither  a "citizen  of the  United  States"  nor  was  he  a
"resident"  or  inhabitant  of  the  "United  States",  i.e.  the
District of  Columbia, its  Territories, Possessions, Enclaves or
Federal States, as those terms were defined supra;

     15.  That all  compensation received  by the  Affiant during
calendar years 1980 and 1981 consisted of "compensation for labor
or personal  services performed  without the  United States",  as
that term was defined by Congress at IRC Section 862(a)(3);

     16.  That  Congress   treated  "compensation  for  labor  or
personal services  performed without the United States" as income
from sources without the United States, at IRC Section 862(a)(3);

     17.  That IRC Section 864 "Definitions" stated:

     (b)  Trade or  Business within  the United  States.  --  For
          purposes of this part, part II, and chapter 3, the term
          "trade or  business within  the United States" includes
          the performance  of personal services within the United
          States at any time within the taxable year ...

     (c)(4) Income from sources without the United States. --

     (A)  ... no  income, gain,  or loss from sources without the
          United States shall be treated as effectively connected
          with the  conduct of  a trade  or business  within  the
          United States.
                                                 [emphasis added]


     18.  That the word "certain" was defined as:

     Certain.   Ascertained; precise; identified; settled; exact;
     definitive; clearly  known; unambiguous; or, in law, capable
     of being  identified or  made known,  without  liability  to
     mistake or  ambiguity, from  data already  given. Free  from
     doubt.
                          [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
                                           [emphasis in original]


     19.  That page  46 of the 1981 IRS Instructional Booklet for
Form 1040 stated that "certain earned income" was "NONTAXABLE";

     20.  That, in  general, Congress  defined the  term  "earned
income" to  mean "wages,  salaries, or  professional fees ..." at
IRC Section 911(d)(2)(A);


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 80 of 116


     21.  That Congress  excluded from  taxation certain  "earned
income", as that term was defined at IRC Section 911(d)(2)(A);

     22.  That there  were two  (2) classes of citizenship within
the United  States of  America, as  fully explained  by the  U.S.
Supreme Court in the following cases:

     There is  in our political system a government of the United
     States and a government of each of the several states.  Each
     of these  governments is  distinct from the others, and each
     has citizens  of its  own, who  owe it allegiance, and whose
     rights, within its jurisdiction, it must protect.

           [U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, 23 L.Ed. 588 (1875)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     Both before  and  after  the  Fourteenth  Amendment  to  the
     federal constitution, it has not been necessary for a person
     to be  a citizen  of the  United States  in order  to  be  a
     citizen of his state.

                    [Crosse v. Board of Supervisors of Elections]
                       [221 A2d. 431, 433 (1966), emphasis added]


     23.  That the Affiant did not ever knowingly, intentionally,
or voluntarily  enter into any agreement, or contract, to be made
partially liable for the federal debt, nor did he ever "elect" to
be treated  as a  "resident" of the United States under 26 C.F.R.
part 5h and IRC Sections 6013(g) & (h), by the signing Forms 1040
or any other related "United States" forms, and therefore none of
the Affiant's earnings can be taxed under the provisions of "Debt
Management for the Federal Debt" at 7 C.F.R. Part 3;

     24.  That the  Affiant did  not voluntarily agree to use the
federal obligations  of the  "United States", as those terms were
defined at  18 U.S.C.  8;  that, if any such unknown contract was
entered into, it was by means of deception and the withholding of
pertinent and  material facts, which deception and withholding of
pertinent and material facts constitute constructive fraud by the
federal government  and are,  therefore, null  and void ab initio
under all forms of law.

     I hereby  certify, under  penalty of perjury, under the laws
of the  United States  of America,  without the  "United States",
that the  foregoing is true and correct in fact and in substance,
to the  best of my current information, knowledge and belief, per
28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


Further This Affiant saith not.


Subscribed, sealed  and affirmed  to this  twelfth (12th)  day of
April, 1983 Anno Domini.

I now affix my own signature to all of the above affirmations:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 81 of 116


/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E.  Trumane, Citizen/Principal,  by special  Appearance,  in
Propria Persona, proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special.


                         John E. Trumane
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic
                  ZIP code exempt (DMM 122.32)


             California All-Purpose Acknowledgement


CALIFORNIA STATE/REPUBLIC       )
                                )
COUNTY OF MARIN                 )


     On April 12, 1983 Anno Domini, before me personally appeared
John E.  Trumane, personally  known to me (or proved to me on the
basis of  satisfactory evidence)  to be  the Person whose name is
subscribed to  the within  instrument and acknowledged to me that
he executed  the same in His authorized capacity, and that by His
signature on  this instrument  the Person,  or  the  entity  upon
behalf of  which  the  Person  acted,  executed  the  instrument.
Purpose of  Notary Public is for identification only, and not for
entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.


WITNESS my hand and official seal.


/s/ Notaria Publicia Magnificante
_____________________________________
Notary Public


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 82 of 116


RETURN TO SENDER

Refused, due to Sender's "Bad Faith"
(see UCC 1-103:36, 1-203:4-5).
Sender is an unauthorized Trust #62,
domiciled in Puerto Rico under the Federal Alcohol Act,
ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935.
See "The Cooper File" in the Supreme Law Library.
See also Title 31, United States Code, wherein "IRS" is not
listed in organization of U.S. Department of the Treasury, and
31 CFR Secs. 51.2(o) and 52.2(n), which evidence 2 treasuries.
Liability and Jurisdiction are emphatically DENIED.

WARNING:  MAIL FRAUD IS A CRIME (see 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1346)

-------------------------cut here--------------------------------


             Instructions for Refusing IRS Mail and
             Participating in Lawful Protest of Same

1.   Do not make the mistake of opening IRS mail.

2.   Cut this form on the dotted line.

3.   Tape form over front of IRS window envelope.

4.   Make 4 photocopies of annotated envelope.

5.   Keep 3 photocopies on file.

6.   Post with local USPS post office or carrier.


Optional Extra Steps:

7.   Write courtesy letter to IRS District Director,
     explaining why mail has been refused
     (see sample letter below).

8.   Attach one of 4 photocopies
     (as proof of your good faith).

9.   Enclose SASE with proper mailing location, e.g.:

          John Q. Doe, Sui Juris
          c/o USPS Post Office Box [xxx]  -or-
          c/o [xxx] [street name]
          [city] [zip code]/tdc
          [NAME OF STATE]

     "tdc" means threat, duress, coercion.
     NAME OF STATE is in all CAPS.

10.  Photocopy SASE before posting.

11.  Send courtesy letter, SASE, and photocopies via
     Registered U.S. Mail, return receipt requested.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 83 of 116


12.  Be sure to show your proper mailing location
     on the return receipt (see sample letter below).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 84 of 116


Sample Courtesy Letter

Registered U.S. Mail #R ___________
Return Receipt Requested


                        NOTICE AND DEMAND

                                                           [date]

District Director
Internal Revenue Service, Inc.
Agents of Foreign Principals
Ogden, Utah Republic

Dear District Director:

                             NOTICE

I am  writing this  NOTICE AND DEMAND as a courtesy to inform you
that I  have refused an envelope which was delivered recently c/o
general  delivery,   [city],  California  Republic,  USA.    This
envelope was  refused with  annotated instructions  to "Return to
Sender".  A copy of this annotated envelope is attached, for your
information.

Please be advised that I inhabit the California Republic and that
I will  be happy  to receive  (but not  accept)  mail  from  you,
provided that  it  exhibits  my  proper  identification  and  the
correct mailing location as shown immediately below my authorized
signature on this NOTICE AND DEMAND.  For your convenience and to
reduce your  costs, I  have enclosed  a SASE,  with Priority Mail
postage prepaid,  which you may use to return the contents of the
envelope which I have refused.


                             DEMAND

Finally, I  hereby demand  written confirmation from you that the
receipt and  use of envelopes and their contents with unqualified
ZIP codes  and/or two-letter  federal abbreviations  (e.g.  "CA")
does NOT grant jurisdiction over California state Citizens to the
Internal Revenue  Service, Inc., to the "United States" or to any
of its  agencies, assigns  or instrumentalities.  In order that I
may rely upon it, this written confirmation must be signed in pen
and  ink   by  you,   with  your   true  and   correct  name  and
identification (not  an alias)  and under  penalty of perjury, as
required of  you by  IRC 6065, and it must be mailed to me within
thirty (30)  calendar days  of your  receipt of  this NOTICE  AND
DEMAND.  Your silence beyond 30 calendar days can be equated with
fraud (see  U. S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299 (1977) quoting U.S.
v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032 (1970)).

Thank you  very much  for your good faith, your consideration and
your cooperation in this matter.


Sincerely yours,

[authorized signature here]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 85 of 116


John Q. Doe, Sui Juris
Citizen of California state
c/o general delivery
[city] (zip code exempt)
CALIFORNIA STATE
zip code exempt (formerly DMM 122.32)

all rights reserved without prejudice

enclosure:     SASE with proper mailing location
               and Priority Mail postage prepaid

attachments:   photocopy of refused envelope
               photocopy of SASE


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 86 of 116


Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx           c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested                San Rafael, California

                                        June 29, 1982

Chief, Collection Branch
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah

Re:  Void "TIN #xxx-xx-xxxx"

Dear Chief:

Your notice  dated 06-29-92 and addressed to "John E. Trumane" is
invalid for  lacking a  signature, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6065,
for exhibiting  bad faith,  and for exhibiting presumptions which
are hereby  rebutted.   In order  to demonstrate my good faith in
this matter,  without granting  jurisdiction in any way, and with
explicit reservation  of ALL my unalienable rights, I voluntarily
respond to your invalid notice, as follows:

Please take  note that, during the calendar year ending 12-31-90,
John E.  Trumane was  a NONRESIDENT  ALIEN with  respect  to  the
"United States"  who did  not live, work, or have income from any
source within  the District  of  Columbia,  Puerto  Rico,  Virgin
Islands, Guam,  American Samoa  or any other Territory within the
"United States",  which entity has its origin and jurisdiction in
Article 1,  Section 8, Clause 17 and Article 4, Section 3, Clause
2 of  the U.S.  Constitution.   Therefore, John  E. Trumane was a
non-taxpayer outside  the venue  and jurisdiction  of the Private
Law known  as 26 U.S.C. and, as such, he was not required to file
any federal tax returns for the calendar year 1980.

Please take  note that  John E.  Trumane was not required to file
Form 1040, Form 1040A, or Form 1040EZ for the calendar year 1980.
He was  not required  to file  Form 1040NR either, because he was
not engaged  in the  conduct of  a "trade or business" within the
"United States",  he had  no income from sources that were within
the "United  States", and  he had  no income that was effectively
connected  with   the  conduct  of  a  "United  States  trade  or
business", as those terms are defined at 26 U.S.C. 7701(a).

Please take  note that  "TIN xxx-xx-xxxx"  has  been  revoked  in
number, account,  and application  by  means  of  nunc  pro  tunc
estoppels at  law and  affidavits of revocation already served on
the Secretary  of  the  Treasury,  Nicholas  Brady,  and  on  the
Secretary of  State for  the California  Republic, March Fong Eu.
These documents  were served  because  of  the  constructive  and
actual fraud  to which the Internal Revenue Service and the State
of California  are parties  in bad faith (see e.g. U.C.C. 1-203).
You and  your employer(s)  are under the obligation of good faith
imposed at  several other  places in the Uniform Commercial Code.
If  you  require  copies  of  these  documents,  you  are  hereby
recommended to  first contact  the office of the Secretary of the
Treasury in Washington, District of Columbia and/or the office of
the Secretary  of State  March Fong  Eu in Sacramento, California
Republic, for further assistance.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 87 of 116


Please  take  note  that,  as  a  consequence  of  the  documents
referenced in the previous paragraph, there is no valid "EIN" and
no valid  "SSN" anywhere  which bears the name "John E. Trumane".
Please correct your records because they are in error.

Please take  note that  all future  written communication  to you
from John E. Trumane will bear unique identification number #xxx-
xx-xxxx until  such time  as the  Internal Revenue Service or the
Treasury Department  issues a different NONRESIDENT ALIEN account
identification number.

Please take  note that  the mailing  address on  your  notice  is
incorrect.   Please correct  your records  because  they  are  in
error.   The correct  mailing address for "John E. Trumane" is as
follows:

                   John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic


Please take note that John E. Trumane did not "reside" within any
federal district,  he did  not "have"  an address,  nor was  he a
"fiduciary" of any federal government property at any time during
calendar year 1980.

Please take  note that  John E.  Trumane was not a "United States
citizen" at any time during calendar year 1980.

Please take  note that  John E.  Trumane was not a "United States
resident" at any time during calendar year 1980.

Please take  note that  John E.  Trumane was not a "United States
person" at any time during calendar year 1980.

Please take note that, during calendar year 1980, John E. Trumane
was a  "NONRESIDENT ALIEN" with respect to the "United States" as
those terms are defined in  26 U.S.C. 7701(b)(1)(B) and 26 U.S.C.
7701(a)(9), respectively.

Please take  note that, as such, John E. Trumane did not have any
"gross income"  that was  derived from sources within the "United
States" during  1980, as the term "gross income" is defined at 26
U.S.C. 872(a).

Please take  note that, as such, John E. Trumane did not have any
"gross income"  which was  effectively connected with the conduct
of a  "trade or  business"  within  the  "United  States"  during
calendar year  1980, as  the term "gross income" is defined at 26
U.S.C. 872(a);   nor  was he engaged in the conduct of any "trade
or business"  within the  "United States"  during  calendar  year
1980.

Please take  note that  John E.  Trumane was  exempted  from  the
requirement of  making  returns,  per  26  U.S.C.  6012(a),  last
paragraph, because  he was  not subject  to any tax imposed by 26
U.S.C. 871 or any other sections of 26 U.S.C. or 26 C.F.R.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 88 of 116


Please take  note that  John E.  Trumane was  not a  "withholding
agent" at  any time  during calendar  year 1980,  as that term is
defined at  26 U.S.C.  7701(a)(16), and  he was  not in  the only
class of  natural "persons"  who are  specifically named in Title
26, the statute, as being liable for federal income taxes.

Please take  note that  John E.  Trumane was not a "fiduciary" at
any time  during calendar  year 1980,  as the term "fiduciary" is
defined at 26 U.S.C. 7701(a)(6).

Please take  note that,  at no time during calendar year 1980 did
John E.  Trumane have a patent, trademark, or copyright issued by
the federal government.

Please take  note that,  at no time during calendar year 1980 was
John  E.   Trumane  involved   in  the   manufacture,  sale,   or
transportation of alcohol, tobacco, or firearms, per 27 U.S.C.

Please take  note that,  at no time during calendar year 1980 was
John E.  Trumane a  "taxpayer", as  that term  is defined  at  26
U.S.C. 7701(a)(14).

Please take  note that,  as a consequence of the above statements
of conclusive  fact, your Individual Master File entries for John
E. Trumane  are invalid  on their  face.   If you need additional
clarification of  these IMF  errors, please  request the  same by
writing to the above mailing address and signing your request, as
required by 26 U.S.C. 6065.


Therefore, please  update your  administrative records to reflect
accurately all  of the above statements of conclusive fact, which
are true and correct to the best of my knowledge and are affirmed
under penalties  of perjury,  without the  "United States", under
the laws of the United States of America, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and  without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 89 of 116


   C E R T I F I C A T E   O F   S E R V I C E   B Y   M A I L

                  Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx

     It is  hereby certified that service of this LETTER has been
made on  interested parties  by mailing one copy thereof, on this
twenty-ninth day of June, 1982, in a sealed envelope with postage
prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:


Chief
Collection Branch
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah


Dated June 29, 1982


/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E.  Trumane, Sovereign  Citizen, by  Special Appearance,  in
Propria Persona,  proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 90 of 116


Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx           c/o general delivery
Return Receipt Requested                San Rafael, California

                                        August 1, 1982

Chief, Collection Branch
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah

Re:  Your Notice Dated 07-27-92

Dear Chief:

Your notice  dated 07-27-92 and addressed to "John E. Trumane" is
invalid for  lacking a  signature, as required by 26 U.S.C. 6065,
for exhibiting  bad faith,  for lacking  the required  Office  of
Management  and   Budget  control   number,  and  for  exhibiting
presumptions which  have already  been rebutted.    In  order  to
demonstrate my  good  faith  in  this  matter,  without  granting
jurisdiction in  any way, and with explicit reservation of ALL my
unalienable rights, I voluntarily respond to your invalid notice,
as follows:

Your notice  is invalid for lacking a written declaration that it
was  made   under  the   penalties  of  perjury.    This  written
declaration is required by 26 U.S.C. 6065, as follows:

     6065  Verification of Returns.

     Except as  otherwise provided  by the Secretary, any return,
     declaration, statement,  or other  document required  to  be
     made under  any provision  of the  internal revenue  laws or
     regulations shall  contain  or  be  verified  by  a  written
     statement that it is made under the penalties of perjury.

                                 [26 U.S.C. 6065, emphasis added]


Your notice  dated 07-27-92  lacks good faith because it contains
absolutely no reference to my letter to you, dated June 29, 1982,
in which  I provided to you "statements" of fact which thoroughly
responded to  your previous  invalid notice  dated 06-29-92.  You
and your  employer(s) are  under the  obligation  of  good  faith
imposed at  several places  in the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC).
Your second  unverified notice  therefore constitutes  bad  faith
(see e.g.  UCC 1-203).   I  have attached  a copy of my letter to
you, dated  June 29,  1982, and  make it an explicit part of this
letter.   Your failure  to respond  specifically to  any  of  the
statements contained  in my  letter to  you, dated June 29, 1982,
renders all  the  statements  contained  therein  as  "conclusive
facts".   Accordingly, you  are now  barred,  by  virtue  of  the
doctrine of  estoppel by acquiescence, from any further challenge
to the conclusive facts as stated therein.

Your notice constitutes an "information collection request" which
is required  by law  to exhibit  a valid  OMB control  number and
expiration date.   Your  Internal Revenue  Manual (IRM), Sections
35(44)0, 35(44)1.6(1), and 35(44)1.6(2), makes it very clear that


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 91 of 116


"correspondence" is  required by  Public Law  96-511  to  exhibit
valid OMB  control numbers  and expiration dates.  Because of the
lack of  a valid  OMB Control  Number and expiration date on your
notice, I  am unable  to determine under what statutory authority
you are  claiming to  act.  As the United States Court of Appeals
for the 9th Circuit stated in the case of Smith v. U.S., 249 F.2d
720, any  government "information  collection request"  that does
not exhibit  a valid  OMB Control  Number is a "bootleg form" and
can be ignored with total impunity.

Even though  your request  is, therefore,  a "bootleg  form", and
even though  I am  entitled  by  law  to  ignore  it  with  total
impunity, I  am giving you the courtesy of this letter to correct
the errors  within  your  correspondence.    Therefore,  I  would
appreciate your  forwarding to  me  an  OMB-approved  information
request letter advising me of the claimed statutory authority for
your "notice".   If  you are  claiming that  I am subject to some
provision of the Internal Revenue Code or its regulations, please
cite in  detail that provision or regulation, and how they relate
to  me,   inclusive  of  all  other  provisions  and  regulations
referenced  by  them,  either  directly  or  indirectly.    I  am
entitled, I  hereby assert  my right, and I hereby demand to know
the nature and cause of your notice, which right is guaranteed by
the 6th Amendment in the Constitution of the United States.

Your invalid  notice dated  07-27-92 exhibits  presumptions which
have already  been rebutted  in detail  in my  previous letter to
you, dated  June 29,  1982.  Specifically, I am not a "taxpayer".
I do  not have the "taxpayer identification number" shown on your
notice because  it has been rescinded nunc pro tunc by affidavits
served on  the Secretary  of the  Treasury.  I am not required to
file a  "Form 1040"  and, therefore,  it is  not and  can not  be
"overdue" as  stated on  your invalid  notice.    The  Individual
Master File data exhibited on your notice is also invalid because
it is  founded on  erroneous presumptions which have already been
rebutted in  detail in  my prior  correspondence to you, in prior
affidavits already  executed and  served on  the Secretary of the
Treasury, and also herein.

Therefore, your  willingness to  persist in making conclusions of
law which  are unsupported  by the  facts on  the  administrative
record is evidence of your willingness to violate my fundamental,
unalienable rights.   As you must already be aware, Chief, if you
act outside  your lawful  capacity  as  an  individual  or  as  a
government employee  and public servant, you can and will be held
personally liable  for each  and every violation that you commit.
Be further  advised that my possible future remedies will include
the filing of a complaint against you and your superior(s) with a
U.S. Magistrate and the Federal Bureau of Investigation, and/or a
formal complaint  with a  U.S. Magistrate  under Rule  3  of  the
Federal Rules  of Criminal Procedure, demanding that a Summons be
issued upon  you to  show cause  why you  should not  be formally
charged with  violations of  26 U.S.C.  7214(a)(1), (3), (6), and
(7), for starters.  I suggest that you consider these sections of
the Internal  Revenue Code  very carefully  as they apply to your
personal situation in this matter.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 92 of 116


Other charges can include fraud, theft and criminal conspiracy to
deprive a  Sovereign State Citizen of rights guaranteed to him by
the U.S.  Constitution.   Keep in  mind that you personally enjoy
absolutely no  personal immunity  for acts committed outside your
capacity as  a public  servant.  Furthermore, the Anti-Injunction
Act will not protect you as long as there is no valid information
request, no  valid notice, or no valid assessment with respect to
me,  in  addition  to  your  lack  of  published  delegations  of
authority.

If I  do not  hear from  you within  thirty (30) calendar days of
your receipt  of this  letter, I  will entitled to the conclusive
presumption that  your notice  was sent  in error  and  that  the
matter is closed.

Therefore, to  repeat for  the second  time, please  update  your
administrative records  to reflect  accurately all  of the  above
statements of  fact, which are true and correct to the best of my
knowledge and  are affirmed  under penalties  of perjury, without
the "United  States", under  the laws  of the  United  States  of
America, per 28 U.S.C. 1746(1).


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights
and  without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 93 of 116


   C E R T I F I C A T E   O F   S E R V I C E   B Y   M A I L

                  Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx

     It is  hereby certified that service of this LETTER has been
made on  interested parties  by mailing one copy thereof, on this
first day  of August,  1982, in  a sealed  envelope with  postage
prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:


Chief
Collection Branch
Internal Revenue Service
Ogden, Utah state


Dated August 1, 1982


/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E.  Trumane, Sovereign  Citizen, by  Special Appearance,  in
Propria Persona,  proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 94 of 116


Certified U.S. Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        June 4, 1983

District Director
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
Ogden, Utah Republic
zip code exempt (DMM 122.32)

Subject:  NOTICE and DEMAND

Dear Mr. Director:

I am  writing this  NOTICE and  DEMAND letter  as a  courtesy  to
inform you  that I  have refused  two certified letters from your
agency which  were delivered  today  c/o  general  delivery,  San
Rafael, California Republic.  Previously, I have also refused two
other first-class  letters from  your agency which were delivered
c/o general  delivery, San  Rafael, California  Republic.   These
first-class  letters   were  rejected,   unopened,  with  written
instructions to  "RETURN TO SENDER" as shown on the front side of
each envelope  (see photocopies  attached).   Mr. Jerry Garcia of
the U.S.  Postal Service  annotated the  certified  letters  with
"REFUSED" in bold letters and returned them to your agency.

Evidently, you  and/or your  subordinates have  made a deliberate
decision to  ignore the  mailing instructions  which were clearly
stated on page 2 of my letter dated June 29, 1982, Certified Mail
#P xxx xxx xxx,   to the Chief of the Ogden IRS Collection Branch
(a copy  of which  is attached).   I have highlighted the mailing
location which  you must  use in  order to  correspond with me in
writing.

I am  forced to  conclude, therefore, that the deliberate refusal
by you  and/or your  subordinates  to  follow  these  simple  and
reasonable mailing  instructions is evidence of your bad faith in
this matter  and constitutes proof of your failure to utilize the
"last known  address" to communicate with me in writing.  You are
hereby warned  that you  are under  the legal  obligation of good
faith, and that bad faith on your part is synonymous with fraud:

     1-203  Obligation of Good Faith

     Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
     of good faith in its performance or enforcement.

                [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]


     1-201(19)  General Definitions

     "Good faith"  means  honesty  in  fact  in  the  conduct  or
     transaction concerned.

            [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 95 of 116


     Bad Faith.  The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
     or involving  actual or  constructive fraud,  or a design to
     mislead or  deceive another,  or a  neglect  or  refusal  to
     fulfill  some  duty  or  some  contractual  obligation,  not
     prompted by  an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
     but by some interested or sinister motive.  Term "bad faith"
     is not  simply bad  judgment or  negligence, but  rather  it
     implies the  conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
     purpose or  moral obliquity;    it  is  different  from  the
     negative idea  of negligence in that it contemplates a state
     of mind  affirmatively operating  with furtive design or ill
     will.  ...  An intentional tort which results from breach of
     duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
     contract.
                          [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     "The Federal  Tax Lien  Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
     101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
     lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
     developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."

                    [Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
                        [56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]


Please also  be advised  that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail  from your  agency, provided that it conforms to the
requirements as  stated in  my previous written communications to
your agency.   These  requirements must be met by your use of the
proper mailing destination on envelopes and on all correspondence
and other documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.


                      CONSPICUOUS WARNING:

I shall  view your  continued refusal  to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing  instructions as  evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will  be charged  with felony  mail  fraud  for  transmitting
evidence of  your "bad faith" through the U.S. Mail and for using
the  U.S.   Mail  for   fraudulent  purposes,   specifically  for
attempting to enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt.

Finally, I  hereby demand  written confirmation from you that the
receipt and  use of  IRS envelopes  and their  contents with  ZIP
codes and/or  two-letter federal  abbreviations (e.g., "CA") does
NOT grant  jurisdiction  over  State  Citizens  to  the  Internal
Revenue Service,  to the  "United  States",  or  to  any  of  its
agencies, assigns or instrumentalities. This written confirmation
must be  signed in pen and ink by you, with your true and correct
name/identification (not  an alias),  under penalties of perjury,
as required of you by IRC Section 6065.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 96 of 116


I am  making this  demand because  I  am  a  Free  Person  and  a
California State  Citizen, i.e.  a "Citizen  of one of the United
States" (see  1:2:3, 2:1:5,  3:2:1 and  4:2:1 in the Constitution
for the United States of America).  By birth and by definition, I
am not  a "citizen  of the  United States".   You are expected to
know the  supreme Law in this California Republic, which has been
interpreted by the California Supreme Court as follows:

     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
     States.
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


This decision  has never  been overturned.   Since the year 1868,
the federal  government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional  definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the  federal government  has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld material facts, exercised undue influence, and
evidenced  unlawful   menace  against   the  American  people  by
proceeding on  the basis  of the  erroneous presumption  that all
Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United States",
and by  representing the  so-called 14th  Amendment as a lawfully
ratified amendment in the U.S. Constitution, when contrary proof,
published court  authorities and  other competent  legal scholars
have now  established that  it was  NOT lawfully  ratified.  (See
State v.  Phillips, 540  P.2d 936  (1975);   Dyett v. Turner, 439
P.2d 266 (1968);  28 Tulane Law Review 22;  11 South Carolina Law
Quarterly 484;   and  the Congressional  Record, June  13,  1967,
pages 15641-15646.)

Therefore, the  definition of  "citizen of  the United States" as
found in  the 1866  Civil Rights  Act (14  Stat. 27) is still the
controlling definition  of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does  not apply  to people of the white race.  Read it for
yourself!

Furthermore,  the  failed  ratification  of  the  so-called  14th
Amendment means  that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by  the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because  Section   4  of  that  failed  amendment  contained  the
following clause:

     Section 4.   The  validity of  the public debt of the United
     States, authorized  by law,  including  debts  incurred  for
     payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
     insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

                                  [text of failed 14th Amendment]


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 97 of 116


The office of U.S. Representative James A. Traficant now confirms
that the  "United States"  is in  Chapter 11 bankruptcy, and that
the Congress  are the  Receivers in  bankruptcy.   For proof, see
Congressman Traficant's recent entry in the Congressional Record,
confirming this  bankruptcy (House  Cong. Rec., Vol. 139, No. 33,
March 17, 1993).  Your attempts to enforce collection of payments
to the  corporate "United  States" must  now be  accompanied by a
clear and  unambiguous  disclosure  of  the  bankruptcy  of  this
"United States".

 I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.

Moreover, your  failure to  recognize the  California Republic on
your outgoing  mail constitutes  prima  facie  evidence  of  your
premeditated willingness  to abrogate  Lawful provisions  of  the
Constitution for  the United  States of  America, which  you  are
obligated to  obey and  which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:

     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion;

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                           [Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]


                       CONSPICUOUS DEMAND:

I HEREBY  DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN  OATH TO  UPHOLD AND  DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA.   LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.

Please be  advised that  any attempts  to trick,  entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare  or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in  my prior  written notices  to your  agency,  in  an
unlawful attempt  on your  part to  grant jurisdiction over me to
some arbitrary  federal district, will be further evidence of bad
faith for which you may be sued, in the event that you attempt to
do anything  on the  basis of  such incorrectly addressed mail or
correspondence.

As a  courtesy to  you, and  in order  to demonstrate my own good
faith and  my sincere desire to read your written communications,
enclosed please  find a  self-addressed stamped  envelope bearing
$2.90 in  prepaid postage  for Priority U.S. Mail.  This envelope
bears the  correct mailing  location at  which I agree to receive
mail from  you and from the other employees of your agency, until
further notice.

Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your full cooperation in this matter.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 98 of 116


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Sovereign California Citizen

enclosure:  copy of June 29, 1982 letter

copy:  Mr. Kenneth Loggins
       U.S. Postal Service
       San Rafael, California Republic


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 99 of 116


Registered U.S. Mail #R xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt

                                        March 6, 1984


                        NOTICE AND DEMAND

Regional Director
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
Ogden, Utah state
zip code exempt

Dear Mr. Director:

I am  writing this  NOTICE and  DEMAND letter  as a  courtesy  to
inform you  that I  have refused  all certified letters from your
agency which were delivered in recent weeks c/o general delivery,
San Rafael, California Republic.  Previously, I have also refused
two  other  first-class  letters  from  your  agency  which  were
delivered c/o  general delivery, San Rafael, California Republic.
These first-class  letters were  rejected, unopened, with written
instructions to  "RETURN TO SENDER" as shown on the front side of
each envelope (see photocopies attached).

Evidently, you  and/or your  subordinates have  made a deliberate
decision to  ignore the  mailing instructions  which were clearly
stated on page 2 of my letter dated June 29, 1982, Certified U.S.
Mail #P  xxx xxx  xxx, to  the Chief  of the Ogden IRS Collection
Branch (a copy of which is attached).  My proper mailing location
was also  shown in a conspicuous location at the top of the first
page of  my letter dated June 4, 1983, Certified U.S. Mail #P 028
299 918,  to the  District Director  of the  Ogden IRS (a copy of
which is  also attached).   I  have highlighted my proper mailing
location on both of these attached letters.

I am  forced to  conclude, therefore, that the deliberate refusal
by you  and/or your  subordinates  to  follow  these  simple  and
reasonable mailing  instructions is evidence of your bad faith in
this matter  and constitutes proof of your failure to utilize the
"last known  address" to communicate with me in writing.  You are
hereby warned  that you  are under  the legal  obligation of good
faith, and that bad faith on your part is synonymous with fraud:

     1-203  Obligation of Good Faith

     Every contract or duty within this Act imposes an obligation
     of good faith in its performance or enforcement.

                [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 203]


     1-201(19)  General Definitions

     "Good faith"  means  honesty  in  fact  in  the  conduct  or
     transaction concerned.

            [Uniform Commercial Code, Article 1, Section 201(19))


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 100 of 116


     Bad Faith.  The opposite of "good faith," generally implying
     or involving  actual or  constructive fraud,  or a design to
     mislead or  deceive another,  or a  neglect  or  refusal  to
     fulfill  some  duty  or  some  contractual  obligation,  not
     prompted by  an honest mistake as to one's rights or duties,
     but by some interested or sinister motive.  Term "bad faith"
     is not  simply bad  judgment or  negligence, but  rather  it
     implies the  conscious doing of a wrong because of dishonest
     purpose or  moral obliquity;    it  is  different  from  the
     negative idea  of negligence in that it contemplates a state
     of mind  affirmatively operating  with furtive design or ill
     will.  ...  An intentional tort which results from breach of
     duty imposed as a consequence of relationship established by
     contract.
                          [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition]
                                                 [emphasis added]


     "The Federal  Tax Lien  Act of 1966, Pub.Law 89-719, Section
     101, 80 STAT 1125 (1966) was adopted in order to conform the
     lien provisions of the internal revenue laws to the concepts
     developed in the Uniform Commercial Code."

                    [Slodov v. U.S., 436 U.S. 238, 98 S.Ct. 1778]
                        [56 L.Ed.2d. 251. (1978), emphasis added]


Please also  be advised  that I will be happy to receive (but not
accept) mail  from your  agency, provided that it conforms to the
requirements as  stated in  my previous written communications to
your agency.   These  requirements must be met by your use of the
proper mailing destination on envelopes and on all correspondence
and other documents enclosed within mailing envelopes.


                      CONSPICUOUS WARNING:

I shall  view your  continued refusal  to follow these simple and
reasonable mailing  instructions as  evidence of your deliberate,
premeditated, and intentional use of the U.S. Mail for fraudulent
purposes and, for this reason, you are hereby warned that you can
and will  be charged with mail fraud for transmitting evidence of
your "bad  faith" through  the U.S.  Mail and  for using the U.S.
Mail for  fraudulent purposes,  specifically  for  attempting  to
enforce collection of a fraudulent federal debt (see 18 U.S.C.S.,
Sections 1341, 1346).

Finally, I  hereby demand  written confirmation from you that the
receipt and  use of  IRS, Inc.  envelopes and their contents with
ZIP codes  and/or two-letter  federal abbreviations  (e.g., "CA")
does NOT grant jurisdiction over California state Citizens to the
Internal Revenue Service, Inc., to the "United States", or to any
agencies, assigns  or instrumentalities  of the  "United States".
This written  confirmation must  be signed in pen and ink by you,
with your  true and  correct name/identification  (not an alias),
under penalties of perjury, as required of you by IRC 6065.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 101 of 116


I am  making this demand because I am a "free Person" (see 1:2:3)
and a  California state  Citizen, i.e.  a "Citizen  of one of the
States united"  (see 1:2:2,  1:3:3, 2:1:5, 3:2:1 and 4:2:1 in the
Constitution for  the United States of America).  By birth and by
definition, I  am not  a "citizen of the United States".  You are
expected to  know the  supreme Law  in this  California Republic,
which has  been interpreted  by the  California Supreme  Court as
follows:

     A citizen  of any one of the States of the union, is held to
     be, and  called a  citizen of  the United  States,  although
     technically and  abstractly there  is no  such  thing.    To
     conceive a citizen of the United States who is not a citizen
     of some  one of  the States, is totally foreign to the idea,
     and inconsistent  with the  proper construction  and  common
     understanding of the expression as used in the Constitution,
     which must  be deduced  from its  various other  provisions.
     The object then to be attained, by the exercise of the power
     of naturalization,  was to  make citizens  of the respective
     States.
                            [Ex Parte Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855)]
                                                 [emphasis added]


This decision  has never  been overturned.   Since the year 1868,
the federal  government has cited the so-called 14th Amendment as
the constitutional  definition of "citizen of the United States".
However, the  federal government  has committed fraud, duress and
coercion, withheld  material facts, exercised undue influence and
unlawful dominion,  and evidenced  menace  against  the  American
people by  proceeding on  the basis  of the erroneous presumption
that all Americans are "subject to the jurisdiction of the United
States", and  by representing  the so-called  14th Amendment as a
lawfully  ratified  amendment  in  the  U.S.  Constitution,  when
contrary proof,  published court  authorities and other competent
legal scholars  have now  established that  it was  NOT  lawfully
ratified.  (See State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936 (1975);  Dyett v.
Turner, 439  P.2d 266 (1968);  28 Tulane Law Review 22;  11 South
Carolina Law   Quarterly 484;  and the Congressional Record, June
13, 1967, pages 15641-15646.)

Therefore, the  definition of  "citizen of  the United States" as
found in  the 1866  Civil Rights  Act (14  Stat. 27) is still the
controlling definition  of "citizen of the United States", and it
simply does  not apply  to people of the white race.  Read it for
yourself!  Please do not make the mistake of concluding that I am
advocating racism or racial superiority here.  It is the Congress
who have  maintained these racial distinctions right in their own
public laws (e.g. see Title 42 U.S.C., Sections 1981 thru 1983).

Furthermore,  the  failed  ratification  of  the  so-called  14th
Amendment means  that all Americans, including also those who are
employed by  the federal and State governments, are entirely free
to question the validity of the public debt of the United States,
because  Section   4  of  that  failed  amendment  contained  the
following clause:


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 102 of 116


     Section 4.   The  validity of  the public debt of the United
     States, authorized  by law,  including  debts  incurred  for
     payment of pensions and bounties for services in suppressing
     insurrection or rebellion, shall not be questioned.

                                  [text of failed 14th amendment]


The  office   of  U.S.  Representative  James  A.  Traficant  has
confirmed that  the "United  States" is in Chapter 11 bankruptcy,
and that  the Congress  are now the Receivers in bankruptcy.  For
conclusive proof, see Congressman Traficant's recent entry in the
Congressional Record,  confirming this  bankruptcy  (House  Cong.
Rec., Vol.  139, No.  33, March  17, 1993).    Your  attempts  to
enforce collection  of payments  to the corporate "United States"
must now  be accompanied by a clear and unambiguous disclosure of
the bankruptcy of this "United States".

 I HEREBY OPENLY QUESTION THE VALIDITY OF THE ENTIRE U.S. DEBT.

Moreover, your  failure to  recognize the  California Republic on
your outgoing  mail constitutes  prima  facie  evidence  of  your
premeditated willingness  to abrogate  Lawful provisions  of  the
Constitution for  the United  States of  America, which  you  are
obligated to  obey and  which explicitly guarantees a "Republican
Form of Government" to every State in this Union, to wit:

     Section 4.  The United States shall guarantee to every State
     in this  Union a  Republican Form  of Government,  and shall
     protect each of them against Invasion;

                  [Constitution for the United States of America]
                           [Article 4, Section 4, emphasis added]


                       CONSPICUOUS DEMAND:

I HEREBY  DEMAND THAT YOU IMMEDIATELY PRODUCE WRITTEN EVIDENCE OF
YOUR SOLEMN  OATH TO  UPHOLD AND  DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION FOR THE
UNITED STATES  OF AMERICA.   LIKE IT OR NOT, YOUR EMPLOYMENT WITH
THE IRS, INC. BINDS YOU TO STRICT OBEDIENCE TO THIS PROVISION.

Please be  advised that  any attempts  to trick,  entice, coerce,
inveigle, ensnare  or cajole me into accepting, under the Uniform
Commercial Code, any mail addressed in any manner other than that
specified in  my prior  written notices  to your  agency,  in  an
unlawful attempt  on your  part to  grant jurisdiction over me to
some arbitrary  federal  district  or  region,  will  be  further
evidence of  your bad  faith for  which you  may be  sued, in the
event that  you attempt  to do  anything on  the  basis  of  such
incorrectly addressed mail or correspondence.

As a  courtesy to  you, and  in order  to demonstrate my own good
faith and  my sincere desire to read your written communications,
enclosed please  find a  self-addressed stamped  envelope  (SASE)
bearing $2.90  in prepaid  postage for  Priority U.S. Mail.  This
envelope bears  the correct  mailing location at which I agree to
receive (but  not necessarily  accept) mail from you and from the
other employees of your agency, until further notice.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 103 of 116


Please also  take notice that the Clerk of the U.S. Supreme Court
recently utilized an identical SASE to transmit correspondence to
me without any difficulty whatsoever, and the U.S. Postal Service
delivered this  same  SASE  without  any  difficulty  whatsoever.
Therefore, the  mailing location  shown on  the enclosed  SASE is
valid and  lawful, constituting  further evidence  still of  your
"Bad Faith"  in this  matter.   As proof of my good faith, I have
attached a  photocopy of the delivered envelope from the Clerk of
the U.S. Supreme Court.

Thank you in advance for your good faith, your consideration, and
your full cooperation in this matter.


            NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS IS NOTICE TO AGENTS.

            NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPALS.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane, Sui Juris
Citizen of California state
c/o general delivery
San Rafael, California Republic
NON-DOMESTIC zip code exempt

All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice

enclosures:  copy of June 29, 1982 letter
             copy of June  4, 1983 letter
             copies of refused first-class letters
             copy of enclosed SASE
             copy of delivered envelope from
               the U.S. Supreme Court Clerk


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 104 of 116


RETURN TO SENDER

Refused, due to Sender's "Bad Faith"
(see UCC 1-103:36, 1-203:4-5).
Sender is an unauthorized Trust #62,
domiciled in Puerto Rico under the Federal Alcohol Act,
ruled unconstitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court in 1935.
See "The Cooper File" in the Supreme Law Library.
See also Title 31, United States Code, wherein "IRS" is not
listed in organization of U.S. Department of the Treasury, and
31 CFR Secs. 51.2(o) and 52.2(n), which evidence 2 treasuries.
Liability and Jurisdiction are emphatically DENIED.

WARNING:  MAIL FRAUD IS A CRIME (see 18 U.S.C. 1341, 1346)

---------------------------cut here------------------------------


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 105 of 116


   C E R T I F I C A T E   O F   S E R V I C E   B Y   M A I L

     It is  hereby certified  that service  of this AFFIDAVIT has
been made  on interested  parties by mailing one copy thereof, on
this ninth  day of March, 1982, in a sealed envelope with postage
prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:


Nicholas Brady, Secretary
Department of the Treasury
15th Street & Pennsylvania Ave., N.W.
Washington, District of Columbia


Dated March 9, 1982


/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E.  Trumane, Citizen/Principal,  by Special  Appearance,  in
Propria Persona,  proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 106 of 116


Certified Mail Number: __________________________________________

                 Date: __________________________________________

John E. Trumane
c/o General Dellivery
Marin County
San Rafael, California Republic
united States of America


                    FOREIGN STATUS AFFIDAVIT


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


                            PREAMBLE

     The following Affidavit of Foreign Status is a public notice
to all  interested parties concerning the Affiant's "birthrights"
and his  "status" as  an "AMERICAN  INHABITANT", as  that  status
would  apply   with  respect  to  the  American  States  (the  50
independent States  of the  Union) and  also with  respect to the
"United States", as follows:

     1.   The Affiant,  John E.  Trumane, was born a Sovereign in
Massachusetts, which  is one of the sovereign States of the Union
of several  States joined  together to comprise the confederation
known as  the united  States of  America.   He is,  therefore,  a
"nonresident  alien"  individual  with  respect  to  the  "United
States", which entity obtains its exclusive legislative authority
and jurisdiction from Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 and Article
4, Section  3, Clause 2 of the Constitution for the united States
of America.   The Affiant's parents were Sovereigns also, born in
sovereign States  of the  Union.   As the  progeny  of  Sovereign
people, the  Affiant was  born "...  one of  the sovereign people
....  A constituent member of the sovereignty synonymous with the
people.", Scott v. Sanford, 19 How. 404.  The Affiant is alien to
so-called 14th  Amendment "United  States" citizenship,  and also
nonresident to  so-called 14th  Amendment  State  residency,  and
therefore he is a "nonresident alien" with respect to both.  As a
Sovereign whose Citizenship originated in Massachusetts by birth,
and who  has remained  intact in  California since the year 1952,
the Affiant is also a foreigner (alien) with respect to the other
49 States  of the  Union and with respect to the "United States".
As a  consequence of  his birth,  the  Affiant  is  an  "American
Inhabitant";  and further,

     2.   The Affiant, to the best of his informed knowledge, has
not entered  into any  valid agreements of "voluntary servitude";
and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 107 of 116


     3.   The Affiant  is a  "NONRESIDENT ALIEN"  with respect to
the "United  States", as that term is defined and used within the
Internal Revenue  Code (Title  26, United  States Codes),  and/or
Title 27  U.S.C., and  with respect  to the rules and regulations
promulgated thereunder as follows:

     The Internal Revenue Code, Title 26, and/or Title 27, United
States Codes,  and associated  federal regulations,  clearly  and
thoroughly make  provision for  Americans born  and living within
one of the 50 Sovereign States of America, to wit:

     Section 1.871-4  Proof of residence of aliens.

     (a)  Rules of  evidence.   The following  rules of  evidence
          shall govern  in determining  whether or  not an  alien
          within the United States has acquired residence therein
          for purposes of the income tax.

     (b)  Nonresidence presumed.   An  alien  by  reason  of  his
          alienage, is presumed to be a nonresident alien.

                                                 [26 CFR 1.871-4]

and further,

     4.   The Affiant  was not born or naturalized in the "United
States", consequently he is not a "citizen of the "United States"
nor a  "United States  citizen", as  those terms  are defined and
used within  the Internal  Revenue Code  (26  U.S.C.)  and/or  27
U.S.C. and  the rules  and  regulations  promulgated  thereunder;
and, therefore,  he is  not subject  to  the  limited,  exclusive
territorial  or  political  jurisdiction  and  authority  of  the
"United States" as defined.

     The "United  States" is  definitive  and  specific  when  it
defines one of its citizens, as follows:

     Section 1.1-1

     (c)  Who is  a citizen.  Every person born or naturalized in
          the United  States and subject to its jurisdiction is a
          citizen.
                                                [26 CFR 1.1-1(c)]


     5.   The Affiant is not a "citizen of the United States" nor
a "United  States citizen  living abroad",  as those  phrases are
defined and  used in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or
27 U.S.C.  and the  rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;
and further,

     6.   The Affiant  is not  a "resident  alien residing within
the geographical boundaries of the United States", as that phrase
is defined  and used  in the  Internal Revenue  Code (26  U.S.C.)
and/or 27  U.S.C.  and  the  rules  and  regulations  promulgated
thereunder;  and further,

     7.   The  Affiant   is  not  a  "United  States  person",  a
"domestic  corporation",   "estate",  "trust",   "fiduciary"   or
"partnership" as  those terms  are defined  and used  within  the
Internal Revenue  Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder;  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 108 of 116


     8.   The Affiant is not an "officer", "employee" or "elected
official" of  the  "United  States",  of  a  "State"  or  of  any
political subdivision  thereof, nor  of the District of Columbia,
nor of  any agency  or instrumentality  of one  or  more  of  the
foregoing, nor  an "officer" of a "United States corporation", as
those terms are defined and used within the Internal Revenue Code
(26 U.S.C.)  and/or 27  U.S.C.  and  the  rules  and  regulations
promulgated thereunder;  and further,

     9.   The Affiant receives no "income" or "wages with respect
to  employment"   from  any   sources  within   the   territorial
jurisdiction of  the "United States" and does not have an "office
or other fixed place of business" within the "United States" from
which the  Affiant derives  any "income"  or "wages"  as such, as
those terms  and phrases are used and defined within the Internal
Revenue Code  (26 U.S.C.)  and/or 27  U.S.C. and  the  rules  and
regulations promulgated thereunder;  and further,

     10.  The Affiant  has never  engaged in  the  conduct  of  a
"trade or  business" within  the "United  States", nor  does  the
Affiant receive  any income  or  other  remuneration  effectively
connected with  the conduct  of a  "trade or business" within the
"United States",  as those  terms are defined and used within the
Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and 27 U.S.C. and the rules and
regulations promulgated thereunder;  and further,

     11.  The  Affiant  receives  no  "income",  "wages",  "self-
employment income"  or "other  remuneration" from  sources within
the "United  States", as  those terms are defined and used in the
Internal Revenue  Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder.  All remuneration paid to
the Affiant  is  for  services  rendered  outside  (without)  the
exclusive territorial, political and legislative jurisdiction and
authority of the "United States";  and further,

     12.  The Affiant  has never  had an  "office" or  "place  of
business" within  the "United States", as those terms are defined
and used  in the  Internal Revenue  Code (26  U.S.C.)  and/or  27
U.S.C. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;  and
further,

     13.  The Affiant  has never been a "United States employer",
nor "employer",  nor "employee"  which also  includes but  is not
limited to  an "employee" and/or "employer" for a "United States"
"household", and/or  "agricultural" activity,  as those terms are
defined and  used in the Internal Revenue Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or
27 U.S.C.  and the  rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;
and further,

     14.  The Affiant  has never  been involved in any "commerce"
within the  territorial jurisdiction of the "United States" which
also includes  but is  not limited  to "alcohol",  "tobacco"  and
"firearms" and  Title 26, Subtitle D and E excises and privileged
occupations, as  those terms are defined and used in the Internal
Revenue Code  (26 U.S.C.)  and/or 27  U.S.C. and  the  rules  and
regulations promulgated thereunder;  and further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 109 of 116


     15.  The  Affiant   has  never   been  a   "United   States"
"withholding agent"  as those  terms are  defined and used in the
Internal Revenue  Code (26 U.S.C.) and/or 27 U.S.C. and the rules
and regulations promulgated thereunder;  and further,

     16.  The Affiant  had no  liability for  any type,  kind  or
class of  Federal Income  Tax in  past  years,  and  was  and  is
entitled to  a full  and complete refund of any amounts withheld,
because any liability asserted and amounts withheld were premised
upon a  mutual mistake  of fact  regarding the  Affiant's status.
The Affiant  has never  knowingly, intentionally, and voluntarily
changed  his  Citizenship  status  nor  has  he  ever  knowingly,
intentionally,  and  voluntarily  elected  to  be  treated  as  a
"resident" of the "United States";  and further,

     17.  The Affiant, to the best of his current knowledge, owes
no "tax"  of any  type, class  or kind  to the "United States" as
those terms are defined and used in the Internal Revenue Code (26
U.S.C.)  and/or   27  U.S.C.   and  the   rules  and  regulations
promulgated thereunder;  and further,

     18.  The Affiant  anticipates no  liability  for  any  type,
class or  kind of federal income tax in the current year, because
the Affiant  does not intend to reside in the "United States", he
does not  intend to  be treated  as  either  a  "resident"  or  a
"citizen" of  the "United  States", he is not and does not intend
to be  involved in  the conduct of any "trade or business" within
the "United  States" or  receive any  "income"  or  "wages"  from
sources within  the "United  States", as  those terms are defined
and used  in the  Internal Revenue  Code (26  U.S.C.)  and/or  27
U.S.C. and the rules and regulations promulgated thereunder;  and
further,

     19.  The Affiant,  by means  of knowingly  intelligent  acts
done with  sufficient awareness of the relevant circumstances and
consequences (Brady  v. U.S.,  397 U.S. 742, 748) never agreed or
consented to  be given  a federal  Social Security  Number (SSN),
same said  as to  a federal  Employee Identification Number (EIN)
and, therefore,  waives and  releases from  liability the "United
States" and  any State of the Union of 50 States, for any present
or future  benefits that  the Affiant  may be  entitled to  claim
under the  Old-Age Survivors  and the  Disability Insurance  Act,
and/or the  Federal Unemployment  Tax Act.    Additionally,  your
Affiant makes  no claim  to any  present or future benefits under
any of the foregoing;  and

     20.  Therefore, I,  John E.  Trumane, am a natural born free
inhabitant and, as such, a Sovereign Citizen/Principal inhabiting
the California  Republic.  Therefore, I am not "within the United
States" but  lawfully I am "without the United States" (per Title
28, U.S.C.,  Section 1746, Subsection 1), and therefore I have no
standing capacity to sign any tax form which displays the perjury
clause pursuant  to Title  28, Section  1746, Subsection  2;  and
further,


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 110 of 116


     PLEASE NOTE WELL:   At no time will the Affiant construe any
of the  foregoing terms defined within the Internal Revenue Code,
Title 26  and/or Title  27, United States Codes, or within any of
the other  United States  Codes, in  a metaphorical  sense.  When
terms are  not words of art and are explicitly defined within the
Code and/or  within a  Statute, the  Affiant relies  at all times
upon the clear language of the terms as they are defined therein,
NO MORE and NO LESS:

     "... When  aid to  construction of  the meaning of words, as
     used in the statute, is available, there certainly can be no
     'rule of law' which forbids its use, however clear the words
     may appear on 'superficial examination' ...."

                 [United States v. American Trucking Association]
                                   [310 U.S. 534, 543,544 (1939)]


     This unsworn  certification is  being executed  WITHOUT  the
"United States",  pursuant to Section 1746(1) of Title 28, United
States Codes, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

     I affirm  under penalty  of perjury  under the  laws of  the
United States  of America  that I  executed the foregoing for the
purposes and  considerations herein  expressed, in  the  capacity
stated, and  that the  statements contained  herein are  true and
correct, to the best of my knowledge.


Executed Anno Domini, on this the ___________ day in the month of

___________________________, 1982.


Subscribed, sealed and affirmed to this  ________________  day of

___________________________, 1982.


/s/ John E. Trumane
_________________________________________________________________
John E.  Trumane, Citizen/Principal,  by special  Appearance,  in
Propria Persona,  proceeding Sui Juris, with Assistance, Special,
"Without Prejudice" to any of my unalienable rights.


                         John E. Trumane
                      c/o general delivery
                 San Rafael, California Republic


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 111 of 116


Acknowledgement


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


     On this  ______ day of ______________________________, 1982,
John E.  Trumane did personally appear before me, and is known to
be  the   one  described  in,  and  who  executed  the  foregoing
instrument, and  acknowledged that  he executed  the same  as his
free act and deed as a Citizen/Sovereign in this above named said
State of  the Union.   Purpose  of notary  is for  identification
only, and not for entrance into any foreign jurisdiction.

                            _____________________________________
                            Notary Public


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 112 of 116


Certified Mail #P xxx xxx xxx
Return Receipt Requested

                                        c/o general delivery
                                        San Rafael
                                        California Republic
                                        zip code exempt
                                        (DMM 122.32)

                                        June 4, 1983

District Director
Internal Revenue Service
Agents of Foreign Principals
c/o P.O. Box 2900
Sacramento, California Republic

Subject:  (See Attached)

Dear Mr. Director:

     I  have  returned  your  presentment  UNOPENED  and  WITHOUT
DISHONOR since  I had  no Federal  tax liability  during calendar
years 1988, 1989, 1980, 1981 and 1982 Anno Domini.

     Are you  a "Holder  in Due  Course" (see UCC 3-302)?  Please
answer "yes" or "no".

     You have  sent me an "Incomplete Instrument" (see UCC 3-115)
which you  are trying  to induce  me by  fraud to accept for your
benefit (see UCC 3-305(2)(b) & (c)).

     Your presentment  failed to exhibit the "last known address"
which has  been communicated  to you by prior written notice sent
from me  via certified  U.S. Mail,  return receipt  requested and
received.

     Your presentment  also exhibited an erroneous and rebuttable
presumption  that   I  elected,   knowingly,  intentionally   and
voluntarily, to  become a  "taxpayer" in  the calendar  years  in
question,  which   presumption  has   already  been  conclusively
rebutted by  lawful affidavits and other documents already served
on your agency.

     You have  not provided any consideration to me, nor have you
provided any performance of any nature for which I am indebted by
virtue of an instrument that bears my authorized "Signature" (see
UCC 3-401).

     I had  no course  of dealing  in the  businesses of alcohol,
tobacco, firearms, or duties, exports or customs of any kind, nor
did  I   for  "internal  revenue"  (see  18  U.S.C.  3283;    for
definitions, see  the History and Interpretive Notes following 18
U.S.C.S 3283).

     Under separate  cover I  have returned  your unsubstantiated
presentment for  reasons including  but not limited to those that
were written  by me  on the  front side of the unopened envelope,
namely, that  "liability  and  jurisdiction  are  denied  due  to
sender's bad faith (UCC 1-203)" and "WARNING:  sending fraudulent
documents via U.S. Mail is a felony."


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 113 of 116


     1.   Please  provide   the  instrument(s)  that  exhibit  my
authorized signature(s),  obligating me  to your  demands under a
valid "Agreement" (see UCC 1-201(3)).

     2.   Please provide  verified proof  of your  claim that you
maintain a  "Security interest"  (see UCC 1-201(37)) in my Person
and/or property,  making  you  a  "Holder"  (see  UCC  1-201(20))
authorized to make presentments.

     3.   Please provide  evidence of  your authority  to make  a
presentment and of the "Territorial Application" (see UCC 1-105),
upon  which  we  have  agreed  in  writing,  with  my  authorized
signature.

     4.   There  are   grounds  for   insecurity  on   my   part.
Therefore, I demand "Assurance" under UCC 2-609 as to your lawful
"Delegation" (see  UCC 2-210)  to operate in a municipal capacity
within the  California Republic (a sovereign State of the Union).
I also  demand that  you provide the lawful Delegation Order that
comes directly  from the  current Secretary  of the  Treasury and
applies to  a "nonresident  alien" as that term is defined at IRC
7701(b)(1)(B).  (See also Treasury Decision 2313, not known to be
overruled.)

     5.   Since I  have  declared  and  affirmed  the  status  of
"nonresident alien"  and not  the "person" described in IRC 7343,
please provide me with material, written evidence documenting the
source of  income  and  from  what  "geographical"  part  of  the
statutorily  defined   "United  States"  it  came,  in  order  to
substantiate your claim based on an agreement.

     6.   What presumption(s)  are you  making that  cause you to
conclude  that  I,  as  a  "nonresident  alien",  am  effectively
connected with the conduct of a trade or business within (inside)
the statutorily  defined "United States" that caused the attached
presentment to  issue?   What presumption(s)  are you making that
cause you  to think  that I, as a "nonresident alien", had income
from sources  within (inside)  the  statutorily  defined  "United
States" that caused the attached presentment to issue?

     7.   Please disclose  the employee I.D. numbers and the real
names (not  aliases) of  all the  employees of  your  agency  who
determined that  I, a  "nonresident alien", had any tax liability
for the  calendar years  in question.   Please  also  disclose  a
verified copy  of any and all returns calculated by the Secretary
of the  Treasury, or  by his  lawful delegate,  under  IRC  6020,
signed in  pen and  ink  (see  UCC  3-401),  and  accompanied  by
evidence of the requisite power of attorney and also proof that I
was legally  obligated to  make such returns as required by Title
26  U.S.C.   per  se   (see  IRC   Sections  6020(a),   and  also
7851(a)(6)(A) concerning  the effective  date of  Subtitle  F  of
Title 26).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 114 of 116


     8.   Please  disclose  the  negotiable  instrument(s)  I  am
alleged to  have signed  that were  "Payable To" (see UCC 3-805),
and that  would make  you a  "Holder in Due Course" authorized to
make presentment(s) to me and demand payment(s) of me.

     9.   For which principal are you operating in this instance:
the Federal Reserve banks, the "United States", both or neither?

     10.  Please disclose  the OMB Number of the form which I, as
a "nonresident  alien", am  required to  file when I neither make
income from  a source  within (inside)  the  statutorily  defined
"United States"  nor am  I effectively connected with the conduct
of a  trade or  business within  (inside) the statutorily defined
"United States" (see 26 CFR 1.871-1(b) and IRC 871(a) thru (d)).


                       NOTICE OF DEFAULT:

     Failure to provide me with the above #1 thru #10 requisites,
should you disclose an agreement, invalidates the presentment you
attempted to make to me (see UCC 3-505(2)).


                       NOTICE OF DEADLINE:

     YOU HAVE  TEN (10) CALENDAR DAYS WITHIN WHICH TO REPLY, FROM
RECEIPT OF THIS CERTIFIED MAIL (see UCC 1-201(10)).

     A "Fault"  will consequently exist if you do not comply (see
UCC 1-201(16)).  If and when a "Fault" exists, that "Fault" would
be on  your  part  and  would  create  provable  frauds,  through
material misrepresentation  and withholding  of  material  facts,
which would  vitiate everything  from the  beginning, pursuant to
supplemental general  principles of  applicable law including but
not limited  to fraud,  misrepresentation, duress,  coercion  and
mistake (see UCC 1-103).

     Because I am a non-domestic "nonresident alien" with respect
to the  federal government  ("not a  resident of the state of the
forum"), I  have no  recourse to a remedy at law on instrument(s)
that you  have not  properly presented.   Your presentment(s) are
then being  made under a fraudulent and "Unconscionable Contract"
(see  UCC   2-302),  and  are  discharged  without  resort  to  a
COMMERCIAL tribunal (see UCC 3-601(2) & (3)).

     Your failure to answer in the prescribed time will be deemed
acceptance  that   I  am  correct  and  that  you  have  no  such
instrument(s) to  substantiate  your  authority  to  present  and
demand payment  or anything  else from me.  Your presentment will
vacate on its own.

     During the  calendar years  in question, I deny that I was a
"taxpayer" as  that term is defined for the "internal" revenue of
the statutorily  defined "United States" in the STATUTE-MERCHANTS
CODE.  That Code is primarily for either "United States citizens"
or "resident aliens" (see IRC 865(g)(1)(A) & (B));  I deny that I
am defined as such and I deny that I am a "United States citizen"
or a "resident alien" for "internal" revenue purposes.  I am also
excluded  from   having  an  "Identifying  Number"  (i.e.  Social
Security Number) under 26 CFR 301.6109-1(g).


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 115 of 116


     Thank you very much for your consideration.


Sincerely yours,

/s/ John E. Trumane

John E. Trumane
Sovereign Sui Juris

P.S.  For your convenience in responding,
      I have enclosed a SASE with my correct
      and current mailing location.  Please
      update your records accordingly.

attachments:  photocopy of refused envelope,
              self-addressed stamped envelope (SASE)

copies:  Mark T. Extort, IRS San Rafael
         IRS Lien Desk, Sacramento (SA-5363)
         Commissioner of Internal Revenue, Washington, D.C.
         Rep. Lynn Woolsey, House of Representatives


                  Correspondence with the "IRS":
                          Page 116 of 116


                             #  #  #
      


Return to Table of Contents for

John E. Trumane