© 1994 - 2009
Against the Grain

c/o 7055 Mountain Rd.
Oxford, North Carolina

Sprint President
Dwight W. Allen
14111 Capital Blvd.
Wake Forest, North Carolina 27587

NOTICE OF DEFAULT                            Cert. Mail Controversy No. Z 086 370 884
              AND
TACIT PROCURATION
           to cure

Brief Synopsis with
Administrative Determination
via
Tacit Procuration

This Notice and Tacit Procuration is addressed specifically to the President of Sprint Phone Corporation, Dwight W. Allen.

A two page letter was sent to The CEO of AT&T Phone Company in care of and also to Dwight W. Allen, dated July 28, 1998, under Certified Mail Z 086 370 875, RRR. This letter contained seventeen paragraphs of which, ten paragraphs were questions disputing the various charges on the phone bill and requesting the documentation of proof that I was obligated to these charges within twenty days.

A carbon copy was sent to Sprint billing in Tenn. with my corrected bill of my own that paid in full the account for the month of July. It was so marked on the money order and the calculation sheet. The Money Order was cashed as reflected in the August billing from Sprint. Acceptance by Sprint extinguished the complete bill.

The letter had questions for Mr. Allen and the CEO of AT&T to answer as the Officers in command representing the Sprint Corporation and AT&T. Mr. Allen did not produce any of the documents demanded within the seventeen paragraphs when he replied in his letter dated Aug. 11, 1998. The CEO of AT&T did not respond.

A second notice was sent to Mr. Allen, dated Aug. 20, 1998 with a carbon copy to Dana Andel, AT&T, after not being able to obtain the name or address of the CEO of AT&T, under certified mail Z 086 370 880 RRR. This notice informed both parties of various laws that did not pertain to me so that the disputed charges could be exempted from the phone bills. The letter also informed Mr. Allen that he had yet to produce any of the documents requested in the previous letter.

On August 28, 1998, I had obtained the address of the AT&T CEO, but not his name. A corrected bill for August 22, 1998 was sent to both parties which was self explanatory. Included in the corrected bill was my invoice for the time spent in research in the matter. Again, both the Money Order and the Calculation/invoice sheet had marked Paid in full on the account. The money Order was cashed as reflected in the September billing by Sprint. Therefore, under offer and acceptance the entire bill was paid.

By letter dated September 9, 1998, Mr. Allen informed me that when my phone bill reaches an amount of $45.00 in past due account for my failure to pay the disputed charges, it would result in suspended phone service.

On September 18, 1998, I sent a third Notice to Mr. Allen, which contained five Exhibits of all the statutes, code of federal regulations, Table of Authorities concerning the disputed charges that should never have been charged to me. This was also carbon copy to AT&T CEO in Basking Ridge, New Jersey. This was certified mail # Z 086 370 882 RRR.

On September 18, 1998, a Mr. Jeff Vanholtz from AT&T called me on the phone. We had a discussion in which he stated that I had to send AT&T a letter every month and they would remove all the excise taxes. Mr. Vanholtz explained all the other charges in dispute were the responsibility of Sprint. Mr. Vanholtz then explained the disputed charges and how four private corporations did the controlling of the disputed charges along with the FCC. The Congress had not authorized legislation for these charges. The charges were to be passed along for the phone companies doing business with each other, to the customer.

On September 23, 1998, under certified Mail # Z 086 370 883, RRR, a Constructive Notice was sent to Mr. Allen with carbon copies going to CEO of AT&T, Sprint billing Department in Tenn., Muriel Offerman, Secretary of Revenue of North Carolina and the AT&T Federal Excise Tax Group. This notice contained excerpts from the phone conversation of Sept 18, 1998 between me and Mr. Vanholtz of AT&T. Also included in this Constructive Notice was evidence of proof from the General Counsel of the General Accounting Office, Robert P. Murphy, before the House Judiciary Committee, that all the disputed charges I had refused to pay were non-constitutional in nature and no legislative authority was ever approved and passed for these charges. In this Constructive Notice I informed Mr. Allen of Fraud and crimes under Title 18 U.S.C. that I had to report to him and the carbon copied people. I had given Mr. Allen, in good faith, another ten days to respond with a meaningful response to all my demands which he had not answered.

On October 7, 1998, a corrected bill and Invoice was sent to Sprint Billing along with payment, by Money Order marked Paid in full. This was copied to Dwight W. Allen of Sprint and C. Michael Armstrong, CEO of AT&T, whose name I had obtained on Sept 30, 1998.

This Tacit Procuration is directed to Mr Dwight W. Allen. Mr. Allen failed to execute his fiduciary duties by responding to the questions presented in a timely manner in good faith. The inaction of Mr. Allen constitutes a legal default and is fatal error.

"Default a failure to discharge a duty, to one's own disadvantage; anything wrongful--some omission to do that which ought to have been done by one of the parties." 90 N.Y.S. 589, 590.

"The term is most often used to describe the occurrence of an event which cuts short the rights or remedies of one of the parties to an agreement or a legal dispute." Barrons's Law Dictionary, third edition.

Your silence, Mr. Allen, to one in your high position, as to the questions and documents requested, shows bad faith and unclean hands. It is tacit admission that the Legal facts I presented could not be disputed, thereby confirming that none of the disputed charges were ever to be applied to me, Albert Coombs.

Tacit admission is that I am correct in that no consent document can be produced with which to compel, through threat of discontinued phone service, to pay for charges that are illegal and of no authority and that I am not one within the purview of the statutes in question. However, the following quotes are to be recognized by Mr. Allen and all others involved in this dispute.

"Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when and inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading." United States v. Tweel 550 F.2d 297, 299-300 (1947)

The definition of FRAUD given in 37 AM JUR 2nd, 144, 146 is: 144: "Unquestionably, the concealment of material facts that one, under the circumstance, is bound to disclose may constitute fraud. Indeed, one of the fundamental tenets of the Anglo-Saxon law of fraud is that fraud may be committed by a suppression of the truth, (suppressio veri) as well as by the suggestion of falsehood. , (suggestio falsi)."

146: "The principle in the law of fraud as it relates to nondisclosure, that a charge of fraud is maintainable where a party knows material facts, is under the duty, under the circumstances, to speak and disclose his information, but remains silent."

A total silence as to the questions asked of Mr. Allen in this cause is proof in the above synopsis. And to resolve the silence this Tacit Admission, by Proxy, is to determine that all the answers herein are true, correct and complete and can never be disputed by Mr. Allen, Mr. Armstrong or any other party involved operating under the same ordinances and statutes above, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence.

Thus, by reason of the foregoing, this proxy determination is made to solidify the implied consent, which by your silence, you, Mr. Dwight W. Allen, President of Sprint agree. The Certified Mail Number of this Tacit Admission will be used for reference and controversy management.

The following questions are answered on your behalf, thus resolving your silence since you did not disagree before and remained silent when you had a legal duty to speak and did not as to the questions and documents that were to be produced to support Sprint's position. The old adage "the buck stops here" applies. You, Mr Allen, are the only person that can object to this in your position as Chief Executive Officer of the Sprint corporate body since you failed to answer the questions posed and agreed by tacit admission, my premises starting with the July 28, 1998 instrument through and including the September 23, 1998 Constructive Notice. You cannot delegate anyone to answer for you as they have no personal knowledge of the material addressed specifically to you. Because of your capacity as Sprint President, the answers, if objected to must be elaborated with proof. No objection means your answers to my questions are correct.

I suggest if your objections will not fit on this document then attach your objections and explanations and microfilm a copy for yourself and you must send the original back to me. There are Fifteen pages to this document and Seventy three Questions that you have answered by proxy.

Question #1. Did you receive a seventeen paragraph letter from Albert Coombs dated July 28, 1998?

Ans. Yes

Question #2. Did you respond by providing any of the requested documents?

Ans. No.

Question #3. Do you or Sprint have possession of any documents showing Albert Coombs is a corporation subject to an Excise tax?

Ans. No.

Question #4. Do you or Sprint have possession of any document under The Fair Debt Collection Practices Act that authorizes you to be a debt collector for the 911 charges?

Ans. No

Question #5. Do you or Sprint have documentation showing the private companies of National Exchange Carriers Association, Inc, The Schools and Libraries Co., the Rural Health Care Corporation, and The Universal Service Fund Corp., has a signed contract with Albert Coombs wherein he agrees to pay the charges you are attempting to collect?

Ans. No

Question #6. Do you or Sprint have documentation showing that Albert Coombs is within the venue of private companies to be subject to a tax laid by private corporate directives?

Ans. No

Question #7. Can you or Sprint produce the contract I signed agreeing to pay the debt that the FCC created in establishing Fiber Optic Cable, New Computers for libraries, service for low income families and service in rural areas, with my signature under offer and acceptance, and the license and agreement that authorizes you to be a debt collector for the FCC?

Ans. No.

Question #8. Is that because no contract exists?

Ans. That is correct.

Question #9. Have you or Sprint produced the documents that I signed, stipulating that I would become involved in these contracts of Universal Fund Charge, N.C. Relay, and the 911 charge, and would pay same?

Ans. No.

Question # 10. Is that because they do not exist?

Ans. That is correct

Question #11. Have you produced the documents I requested authorizing you to be a tax collector for federal and state excise taxes?

Ans. No.

Question #12. Is that because they do not exist?

Ans. Yes, they do not exist.

Question #13. Mr. Allen, is the following a true and correct statement from N.C.G.S. 62A-5 (c) which states, " The local government subscribing to 911 service shall remain ultimately responsible to the service supplier . . .."

Ans. Yes.

Question #14. Mr. Allen, does the above statement name Albert Coombs as being ultimately responsible to the service supplier?

Ans. No.

Question #15. Mr. Allen is this a correct statement from

N.C.G.S. 62A-4 (b) (1),

" The governing authority by resolution requests the county or municipal board of elections, as appropriate, to conduct a special election on a date certain, in which a majority of those voting who are residents of the political subdivision vote to authorize the ordinance.?" emphasis added

Ans. Yes.

Question #16. Mr. Allen, do you or Sprint have in its possession any documentation that Albert Coombs is a resident of any political subdivision of the State?

Ans. No.

Question #17. Mr. Allen, do you or Sprint have any documentation proving Albert Coombs is a "resident" who has "voted" to be obligated to pay this tax to you or Sprint?

Ans. No.

Question #18. Mr. Allen N.C.G.S. 62A above stated the 911 scheme is an "ordinance", did it not?

Ans. Yes

Question #19. Mr. Allen, would you and Sprint concur that this is a valid statement, "Ordinances...are laws passed by the governing body of a municipal corporation for the regulation of the corporation." (emphasis added) Bills v. City of Goshen, 20 N.E. 115, 117.

Ans. Yes.

Question #20. Mr. Allen, do you have any proof whatsoever that Albert Coombs is a corporation member of any kind belonging to a municipal corporation called a county?

Ans. No

Question #21. Mr. Allen, is this a true statement, "A city ordinance is not a law of the same character as a statute. It is merely a regulation; a rule of conduct passed by the common council for the direction and supervision of its citizens." (emphasis added) People v. Gardner, 106 N.W. 541, 545.?"

Ans. Yes.

Question #22. Mr. Allen, do you have any documentation that Albert Coombs is a "citizen" of a political corporate government body?

Ans. No.

Question #23. Mr. Allen, would you have to agree that the following is also a true statement, "An ordinance is not, in the constitutional sense, a public law. It is a mere local rule or by-law, a police or domestic regulation, devoid in many respects of the characteristics of the public or general laws." State v. Fourcade, 13 So. 187, 191; McInerney v. City of Denver, 29 P. 516, Since regulations are the work of a corporation, they can only apply to members of that corporation.?" emphasis added

Ans. Yes.

Question #24 Mr. Allen, you did answer correctly that you had no evidence that Albert Coombs was a "resident", did not "vote" and therefore was not a member of any political subdivision, is that correct?

Ans. Yes.

Question #25. Mr. Allen, is it correct to say that you get a percentage of all the taxes for administrative fees according to N.C.G.S. 62A?

Ans. Yes.

Question #26. Mr. Allen, you made admissions preceding this question that I was not one subject to these disputed charges, therefore you could not collect and keep one percent for administrative fees pertaining to me, is that correct?

Ans. Yes, that is correct.

Question #27. Mr. Allen, was the statement I had sent you, made in the letter of Robert P. Murphy, who is the General Counsel of the General Accounting Office, a correct statement wherein he stated to Senator Ted Stevens which went before the House of Representatives the following?;

"the Commission [FCC] exceeded its authority when it directed the National Exchange Carriers Association, Inc. (NECA) to create the Schools and Libraries Corporation and the Rural Health Care Corporation. The Government Corporate Control Act specifies that "[a]n agency may establish or acquire a corporation to act as an agency only by or under a law of the United States specifically authorizing the action" 31 U.S.C. 9102. These entities act as the agents of the Commission [FCC] and, therefore, could only be created pursuant to specific statutory authority. Because the Commission [FCC] has not been provided such authority, creation of the two corporations violated the Government Corporation Control Act."

Ans. Yes.

Question #28. Mr. Allen, this statement proves that even the FCC could not set these taxes, let alone the private companies mentioned, and all have violated the laws of the United States according to General Counsel of the General Accounting Office, is that correct?

Ans. That is correct.

Question #29. Is this a true statement that Mr. Vanholtz of AT&T gave me over the phone that I sent to you, "The Universal Fund and Carrier line charges are not really taxes. They're what AT&T is billed by the local phone companies by Universal Fund Corporation, and those are charges that AT&T has decided that we will recoup from our customers.?"

Ans. Yes

Question #30. So this is a private company, Universal Fund Corporation doing the billing in which you (Sprint) are collecting from Albert Coombs?

Ans. Yes

Question #31. Mr. Allen, is this a true statement made before the Judicial Committee February 26, 1998, which can be found on the Internet,

"Of further concern in terms of good public policy is the fact that this tax is hidden from taxpayers. Only cellular and business customers will get full disclosure of this tax. While it may be politically appealing to hide taxes from the American public - and thereby lessen the apparent cost of government - by destroying a fair pricing mechanism, society fails to get an optimal balance between government and private spending." emphasis added

Ans. Yes.

Question #32. So, Mr. Vanholtz was in error according to the statements made in the House Judiciary Committee when he stated that, "The Universal Fund and Carrier line charges are not really taxes."

Ans. Yes.

Question #33. Mr. Allen, did you not receive from Albert Coombs a Constructive Notice by certified mail dated September 23, 1998 wherein I included from the Internet portion of "E-rate Information, SPIN Number 143012411 and the FCC publication FCC 97-157," stating,"that this is a totally a non-constitutional act?" Ans. Yes.

Question # 34. Mr. Allen, did I not ask you for any and all contracts containing my signature, being that you could not produce evidence that I was a "resident," or "member" of any political subdivision (county) of the State?

Ans. Yes.

Question #35. And did you provide me with any contacts containing my signature obligating me to pay these disputed charges?

Ans. No.

Question #36. Mr. Allen, did you not receive a Third Notice from me, dated September 18, 1998 under certified mail?

Ans. Yes.

Question #37. Did that Third Notice contain five government exhibits consisting of eleven pages?

Ans. Yes

Question #38. Did this Third Notice and exhibits contain information concerning the Federal and State Excise taxes?

Ans. Yes

Question #39. Mr. Allen, is this a true statement of Government Document Exhibit #1, 26 CFR 49.4251-1. Note (b) "Termination of tax on general telephone service. Except as otherwise provided in subparagraph (2) of this paragraph, no tax is imposed on amounts paid on or after July 1, 1965, for general telephone service rendered on or after such date.?"

Ans. Yes

Question #40 Mr. Allen subparagraph (2) makes no mention of a excise tax collection after July 1, 1965, is that correct?

Ans. Yes

Question #41. Mr. Allen, does Exhibit #1, 26 CFR 4251-1(a)

state, "In General. Section 4251 imposes a tax on the amounts paid for telephone service: . . ..?"

Ans. Yes

Question #42. Mr. Allen in Exhibit #2, which is Title 26 USC Sec. 4251, it states, "Imposition of tax" and then states that a tax is imposed on communications services which is defined as the telephone service. It that a correct statement found in Exhibit #2?

Ans. Yes

Question #43. Mr. Allen, on page 2 of Title 26 USC Sec. 4251 does it not state under STATAMEND, REPEAL in capitalized words?

Ans. Yes

Question #44. Is this a correct wording of the statement directly under the word REPEAL, to wit:

"This subchapter, relating to the tax on communications, was repealed by Pub. L. 90-364, Title I, Sec. 105(b)(3), June 28, 1968, 82 Stat. 266. . . ?"

Ans. Yes

Question #45. Mr. Allen, in Exhibit #3 does it not show that the only Form approved by the Office of Management and Budget under 26 CFR 602.101, which carried OMB# 1545.1075 for 49.4251- 1 & 2?

Ans. Yes

Question #46. Mr. Allen have you or Sprint ever sent Albert Coombs any such excise tax Form that contain these numbers?

Ans. No.

Question #47. Mr. Allen, is the reason these Forms have never been sent to me, Albert Coombs, is the fact they do not pertain to me?

Ans. Yes. That is correct.

Question #48. Mr. Allen, Did I send you Exhibit #4 in the Third Notice, which was the 1991 CFR Index and Finding Aids which shows the statute and the CFR section that puts the statute into effect and cited as (1986 IRC)?

Ans. Yes

Question #49. On page 814 of Exhibit #4 did it contain section 4251?

Ans. No

Question #50. Mr. Allen, in your capacity as President are you constantly informed by your staff attorneys as to the legality of Sprint's actions and apprised of the changes in the law?

Ans. Yes

Question #51. Mr. Allen, would you have to make a rational man's statement, given all the evidence in the governments own records that Sprint, AT&T and all Communications Services have been collecting a tax from Albert Coombs that was repealed in 1968?

Ans. Yes.

Question #52. Mr. Allen I have searched the State of North Carolina statutes on excise tax and cannot find one statute on the excise tax you are collecting and I had asked you to please provide me with that specific statute so I may stand corrected, is that not so?

Ans. Yes.

Question #53. And did you provide me that statute?

Ans. No.

Question #54. And, is that because that statute does not exist Mr. Allen?

Ans. Yes.

Question #55. Mr. Allen, Is this a true statement found in exhibit #5 that I sent you in the Third Notice, titled, CHAPTER 1-INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, Section 601.106 (f) (1) Rule I. "An exaction by the U.S. Government, which is not based upon law, statutory or otherwise, is a taking of property without due process of law, in violation of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution."

Ans. Yes.

Question #56. Mr. Allen, from the above it is evident that neither Sprint, AT&T nor any other communication telephone service has/had no authority to collect any such excise tax from Albert Coombs, since 1968, is that correct?

Ans. Yes.

Question #57. Mr. Allen, would you say that legally, all telephone companies that Albert Coombs used since 1968, are required to refund all excise taxes collected, otherwise they face criminal prosecution for fraud, illegal conversion, extortion, theft, mail fraud, and a multitude of crimes?

Ans. Yes

Question #58. Mr. Allen, from the above laws, statutes and codes it is evident that all these "hidden taxes," in the guise of "charges," fostered by private companies for the price of doing business among the telephone companies, absent a signed contract from Albert Coombs cannot be collected either, is that a correct statement?

Ans. Yes

Question #59. Mr. Allen, has Sprint and AT&T taken property without due process in accordance with Section 601.106 (f) (1) Rule I, above in question 55, that you answered Yes?

Ans. Yes

Question #60. Mr Allen, in your letter to me by U.S Mail, dated September 9, 1998, did you not threaten to suspend my phone service if I did not pay these obviously illegal exaction of these "hidden taxes?"

Ans. Yes

Question #61. Mr. Allen, has Sprint, AT&T and all other telephone companies used the U.S. Mail to collect these illegal taxes?

Ans. Yes.

Question #62. Mr. Allen would you say this is a correct statement of the laws of the United States, to which Sprint, AT&T and the four private corporations are bound when operating under the FCC, who has no authority to issue a tax that is designed solely for Congress to enact?;

"Pursuant to 18 USC 241. Conspiracy against rights. "If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; ... They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both;"

Ans. Yes.

Question #63. Mr. Allen, is it a right to not have your money stolen by artifice, and intimidation of threats of loss of phone service if you do not fall to the fraud once it is found out?

Ans. Yes.

Question #64. Mr. Allen, does Sprint and AT&T operate in interstate commerce?

Ans. Yes.

Question #65. Mr. Allen, would you say this is a correct statement of the laws of the United States, to which Sprint, AT&T and the four private corporations are bound when operating under the FCC, who has no authority to issue a tax that is designed solely for Congress to enact?;

"Pursuant to 18 USC 1952. Interstate and foreign travel or

transportation in aid of racketeering enterprises. "(a) Whoever * * * uses the mail or any facility in interstate or foreign commerce, with intent to - (1) distribute the proceeds of any unlawful activity; or (3) otherwise promote, manage, carry on, or facilitate the promotion, management, establishment, or carrying on, of any unlawful activity, and thereafter performs or attempts to perform - (A) an act described in paragraph (1) or (3) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years, or both;" And further, "(b) As used in this section (i) "unlawful activity" means...(2) extortion, bribery, or arson..."

Ans. Yes

Question #66. Mr. Allen, did not General Counsel of the General Accounting Office say the actions of the FCC and the private companies mentioned herein were unlawfull?

Ans. Yes.

Question #67. Mr. Allen, did not Albert Coombs inform both Sprint and AT&T of the illegality of their actions, by at least three notices and provide all the proof and yet I am still billed for charges that are non-constitutional and are lacking any authority to take same from Albert Coombs?

Ans. Yes

Question #68. Mr. Allen, have you, the President of Sprint, ever sent me any documentation that would support your stand to collect these "hidden taxes" that are of no validity, and some repealed, even though I repeatedly asked you to do so in good faith?

Ans. No.

Question #69. Mr. Allen, would you say this is a correct statement of the laws of North Carolina, to which Sprint, AT&T and the four private corporations are bound when operating under the FCC and private companies to issue a tax that is designed solely for Congress to enact?;

N.C.G.S. 14-118.4 Extortion.

"Any person who threatens or communicates a threat or threats to another with the intention thereby to wrongfully to obtain anything of value . . . is guilty of extortion and such person shall be punished as a Class F felon."

Ans. Yes.

Question #70. Mr. Allen, would you say this is a correct statement of the laws of the United States, to which Sprint, AT&T and the four private corporations mentioned are bound when operating under the FCC, who has no authority to issue a tax that is designed solely for Congress to enact?;

"Pursuant to 18 USC 1962. Prohibited activities. "(a) It shall be unlawful for any person who has received any income derived, directly or indirectly, from a pattern of racketeering activity or through collection of an unlawful debt...(d) It shall be unlawful for any person to conspire to violate any of the provisions of subsection (a), (b), or (c) of this section."

Ans. Yes

Question #71. Mr. Allen, Sprint and AT&T are operating under the direction of four private companies and the FCC, which the General Counsel for the General Accounting Office has stated the FCC has no authority to issue taxes to be collected, as that would usurp the authority of Congress and violate their Constitution, is that correct from the evidence I presented to Sprint and AT&T.

Ans. Yes

Question #72. Mr. Allen, would you say these two sections of the United States Titles are a correct statement of the laws of the United States, to which Sprint, AT&T and the four private corporations are bound when operating under the FCC, who has no authority to issue a tax that is designed solely for Congress to enact?;

"Pursuant to 18 USC 1963. Criminal penalties. "(a) Whoever violates any provision of section 1962 of this chapter shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more then 20 years, or both..."

AND

"Pursuant to 18 USC 1964. Civil remedies. "(c) Any person injured in his business or property by reason of a violation of section 1962 of this chapter may sue therefor in any appropriate United States district court and shall recover threefold the damages he sustains and the cost of the suit, including a reasonable attorney's fee..."

Ans. Yes.

Question #73. Mr. Allen, would any reasonable and prudent man, given the evidence as stated above and your answers, agree that I, Albert Coombs, have been damaged?

Ans. Yes.

Thus by our agreement, Mr. Dwight W. Allen, by proxy determination and the foregoing, it has been determined that Albert Coombs is not bound by any mala prohibita statutes of the "state"/State of North Carolina operating in its political corporate structure, no county, nor of the United States operating also in its commercial political structure, 28 USC 3002 (15). It has been proven by the above answers that I am not part of the "body politic," "member," "corporation," "resident of a political body," "excise taxable entity," have no contract that subjects me to the N.C.G.S. Statutes in question and the United States excise tax which was repealed in 1968.

It is agreed that since I am not a "resident of the political subdivision," have no contract with my signature obligating me to pay this charge, and being I am not subject to the "particular tax" on the 911 charge, the relay charge and other "hidden taxes," I need not pay these unlawful charges.

Therefore, it has been determined that Neither Sprint, AT&T phone companies, FCC, nor the four other private corporations have no contract with me in these disputed charges. Therefore, no phone company can lawfully collect any such charges and are in violation of numerous laws both civil and criminal of North Carolina and the United States.

Each answer, if not SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED to in DETAIL, by you, Mr. Dwight W. Allen, with clear, concise, unambiguous terms as stated in Gould v Gould, 245 U.S. 153, within fourteen days of receipt of this instrument, it will stand as final.

Date:

Albert Coombs,

THIS WILL BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN ANY COURT OF LAW OR AS A NOTICE TO ANY MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATIVE HEARING COURT OR BODY THAT THEY HAVE NO SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION OVER Albert Coombs AS EVIDENCED BY THE ABOVE. THIS WILL ALSO BE USED TO PROVE VIOLATION OF PEONAGE LAWS.

I, , Notary Public for the State of North Carolina, the county of Granville, hereby affirm that this attached document was signed by the one known to me to be the signatory of this NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND TACIT PROCURATION under certified mail Z 086 370 884.

Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of

19 .

Notary Public

(Seal) My Commission expires: