© 1994 - 2007
Against the Grain

Site Design, Hosting and Logo
by DNA Web Media

                                                                                                                                          7055 Mountain Road
                                                                                                                                             Oxford, North Carolina
                                                                                                                                             July 23 , 2004

Len J. Lauer
President and Chief Operating Officer
President-Sprint Consumer Solutions
Sprint Corporation
6200 Sprint Parkway
Overland Park, KS 66251
                                                               Signature Confirmation Mail # 2301 3460 0001 1385 7613

NOTICE OF DEFAULT
AND
TACIT PROCURATION TO CURE
Brief Synopsis with
Administrative Determination
via
Tacit Procuration

           This Notice of your default and Tacit Procuration to cure a notice addressed specifically to Len J. Lauer President and Chief Operating Officer, Sprint Customer solutions.

Dear Mr Lauer,

          On June 7, 2004 I wrote you a letter demanding certain documents you allegedly rely on to justify the collection of the federal excise tax on the phone bill every month.. I had given you 20 days to answer and you did not. The inaction of lack of response , when you have a duty to reply to a customer in your customer Solutions status, from you Mr. Lauer, constitutes a legal default and is fatal error.

          "Default is 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. Lauer , as someone of your high position as Sprint's Chief Officer of Customer Solutions, to the request and documents I have every right to request, shows bad faith and unclean hands. It is tacit admission that the Legal documents I asked could not be produced by you to substantiate the collection of the Federal Excise tax every month from me. Your tacit admission by default, establishes that I am correct in my assertion that neither statute, regulation nor Form containing an Office of Management and Budget ,OMB, for collection of the federal excise tax exists, which compels me to a forced exaction of my money to pay a tax and of no legitimate authority for Sprint to collect same. .

          "Silence can only be equated with fraud when there is a legal and moral duty to speak or when an inquiry is left unanswered and 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 you, Mr. Lauer, in this cause, is proof of the above synopsis. And to resolve the silence, this Tacit Admission, by Proxy, is to determine that all the answers you gave herein are true, correct and complete and can never be disputed by Mr. Lauer, or any other party involved, operating under the same purported Forms, regulations and statutes above, under the doctrine of estoppel by silence.

                                                                         PROXY DETERMINATION
          Thus, by reason of the foregoing, this proxy determination is made to solidify the implied consent, which by your silence, Mr. Len J. Lauer, You agree in your answers herein.. The Signature Confirmation Mail Number of this Tacit Admission will be used for reference and controversy management in a court of the United States.

          The following questions are answered on your behalf, thus resolving your silence since you did not disagree before and remained silent when you had an opportunity and a legal duty to speak and did not. The old adage "the buck stops here" applies. You, Mr. Lauer, are the only person that can object to this in your position as Chief Officer of Customer Solutions, and CEO of that corporate body since you failed to perform the request of June 7, 2004, and agreed by default and tacit admission, my assertions.
          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 Chief , CEO of Customer Solutions, the answers, if objected to must be presented with proof. No objection means your answers to my questions are correct. This will then be sent to Sprint's Billing and Collections as proof I need not pay the purported federal excise tax and the Sprint Bill will be still be discharged in FULL under protest minus the federal excise tax.

          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 twenty three questions in this document and seven pages.

Question #1       Did I ask for the current Statute at Large,. not the code section in IRC, but the Congressional Statute that                          establishes Sprint's right to collect the federal excise tax from me?
Answer.            Yes.

Question #2      Did you produce that Statute at Large for me?
Answer.            No.

Question #3      Did you produce the Regulation that apply to the Statute at Large which the IRS says Sprint is to abide by in                         collecting this excise tax and without it the Statute, if any, stands mute?
Answer.           No.

Question #4     Did you supply me with the current Form for collecting this federal Excise tax that explicitly states in the instructions                       that the payer is to file?
Answer.           No.

Question #5     Is that because there is no regulation specifically instructing anyone to collect the federal Excise tax on phone use?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #6     Is that due to the fact that the regulation was repealed?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #7     Was the currently repealed regulation used to justify the collection of the federal Excise tax from me previously to                      it's repeal 26 C.F.R. 49.4251-1 and 49.4251-2?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #8     Mr. Lauer, was this Form used to collect the federal excise tax, OMB number 1545-1075?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #9     And did the Office of Management and Budget assign to this Form as required by law, a OMB number?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #9     Mr. Lauer, did you produce for me this Form carrying a OMB number 1545-1075?
Answer.           No.

Question #10   Was this due to the fact that the Form carrying OMB 1545-1075 no longer exists since the regulation was                         repealed in 1965?
Answer.           Yes.

Question #11   Mr. Lauer has Sprint been collecting this federal excise tax from me while no
                        statute at large exists, no regulation exists and no valid Form carrying an O.M.B. number to support Sprint's                         collecting this purported federal excise tax?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #12   Does 26 C.F.R. 602.101, titled "Sec. 602.101 OMB Control Numbers" list any control numbers for the Form                        Sprint alleges it uses to justify collection of this excise tax?
Answer.          No.

Question #13   In my June 7, 2004, Cert. Mail Controversy No. 7099 3400 0009 2117 6990 did I not supply you this brief                        dissertation of court cases that support my position of not having to pay a repealed tax, placed herein to refresh                        your memory,

          "There is no valid replacement for the old Form 1545-1075 and if there was there would be a valid OMB # assigned under the Paperwork Reduction Act and it would appear in 26 CFR 602.101. Otherwise it is a bootstrap for no regulation exists and the U.S. Courts have ruled that laws passed by Congress are not self-executing [U.S. v. Murphy, 809 F.2d 1427, 1430 (9th Cir. (1987)]; that forms are not legally recognizable unless promulgated by the Secretary of the Treasury [U S. v. Reinis, 794 f.2d 506, 508 (9th Cir. 1986)]; and that, where regulations are controlling, "the Act's civil and criminal penalties attach only upon violation of regulations promulgated by the Secretary if the Secretary were to do nothing, the Act itself would impose no penalties on anyone ... Since only those who violate these regulations may incur civil or criminal penalties, it is the actual regulation issued by the Secretary and not the broad authorizing language of the statute which is to be tested". [California Bankers Assoc. v. Schultz, 416 U.S. 21 26 (1974)]
And also;

" If a statute does not satisfy the due-process requirement of giving decent advance notice of what it is which, if happening, will be visited with punishment, so that men may presumably have an opportunity to avoid the happening (see International Harvester Co. v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 216 , 34 S.Ct. 853; Collins v. Kentucky, 234 U.S. 634 , 34 S. Ct. 924; United States v. L. Cohen Grocery Co., 255 U.S. 81 , 41 S.Ct. 298, 14 A.L.R. 1045; Cline v. Frink Dairy Co., 274 U.S. 445 , 47 S.Ct. 681), then 'willfully' bringing to pass such an undefined and too uncertain event cannot make it sufficiently definite and ascertainable. 'Willfully' doing something that is forbidden, when that something is not sufficiently defined according to the general conceptions of requisite certainty in our criminal law, is not rendered sufficiently definite by that unknowable having been done 'willfully'. It is true also of a statute that it cannot lift itself up by its bootstraps. "
U.S. Supreme Court SCREWS v. U.S., 325 U.S. 91 (1945)", ?

Answer.           Yes

Question #14   Since I am not a corporation, I am not required to file Form 720 Quarterly Federal Excise Tax Return, which                         the IRS says Sprint has to file, therefore the tax does not apply to me but to Sprint, is this a true statement?
Answer.          Yes

Question #15   Therefore, I am excluded under the Maxim of law expressio unius est exclusio alterius since there are no                         regulations, Statute, nor Valid Form I am to abide by in being forced to pay this repealed federal Excise tax                         that appears every month on my phone bill?
Answer.           Yes, you are excluded.

Question #16   Is it true that the O.M.B. stated that the Department of Treasury, Internal Revenue Service agency form 8806,                        Computation of Communication Taxes expired in 1991, so that is no longer a valid defense on Sprint's part to                        charge and collect from me this federal excise tax?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #17   Is this a true statement from this Court, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, -vs- WILLIAM R. BARNES,                         NO.91-3350, Third Circuit Court of Appeals

                       The bill ... [r]equires all information requests of the public to display a control number .... Requests which do not                         reflect a current OMB control number or fail to state why not, are "bootleg" requests and may be ignored by                        the public. 1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 6242. [Emphasis added.]?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #18.   Mr Lauer is this true that Section 3507(f) declares no agency shall engage in a collection of information without                         obtaining from the Director a control number to be displayed upon the information collection request.                         This requirement complements the provisions of section 3512 on public protection.
                       1980 U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, 6288. [Emphasis added.]
Answer.           Yes.

Question #19   Mr Lauer, is this a true statement found in Internal Revenue Manual IRM 35 (44) 1.6, and the Paperwork                        Reduction Act Pub L. 96-511, 44 U.S.C. S.3512 - public protection - "notwithstanding any other provision                        of law,  no person shall be subject to any penalty for failing to maintain or provide information to any                        agency if the information collection request involved was made after December 31, 1981 and does not                        display a current control number assigned by the Director, or fails to state that such request is not                        subject to this chapter."?
Answer.          Yes.

Question #20   Mr. Lauer, is this Sprint's protection from the IRS telling you that you have to collect and that they can't enforce                        because there are no regulations in place, ergo no Form can exist either, which OMB can assign a number to.
Answer.          Yes.

Question #21   Mr Lauer, when I send in the discharge of my next phone bill, minus the Federal Excise tax, there can be no                         repercussions against me in denying me phone service?
Answer.           That's correct?

Question #22   Mr. Lauer, then no one at billing has any authority to write me demanding any tender of payment to discharge                         the federal excise tax when I no longer pay that amount in tendering the discharge?
Answer.           That's correct.

Question #23   Then you will see to it that Sprint removes all federal excise tax demands from my phone bill since you are the                         Chief of Customer Solutions?
Answer.          Yes.

                                                          Summary of Proxy Determination

          Thus by our agreement, Mr. Len. J. Lauer, President and Chief Operating Officer, President-Sprint Consumer Solutions, by proxy determination and the foregoing, it has been determined that Albert Coombs is not bound to discharge any Federal Excise Tax that Sprint bills me as there is no legal support for Sprint to collect such tax. It is agreed that no Statute, Regulation and Form exists that allows you, Sprint, legal justification to collect this federal excise tax from me.

                                               DETERMINATION FINAL ABSENT OBJECTION

          Each answer, if not SPECIFICALLY OBJECTED to in DETAIL, by you, Len J. Lauer, President and Chief Operating Officer, President-Sprint Consumer Solutions with clear, concise, unambiguous terms as stated in Gould v Gould, 245 U.S. 153, within fourteen days of receipt of this certified instrument, it will stand as final.

Date:


Albert Coombs,

THIS WILL BE USED AS EVIDENCE IN The Court of Competent Jurisdiction.


      I,                                         , Notary Public for the State of North Carolina, the county of
Granville, hereby affirm that this attached document was signed by the Physical Man known to me to be
the signatory of this NOTICE OF DEFAULT AND TACIT PROCURATION under signature
confirmation mail # 2301 3460 0001 1385 7613

Witness my hand and official seal, this the day of 2004

Notary Public

(Seal) My Commission expires: