[Californians are "presumed" to know this information, so we might as well actually know it. After all, it is all written down in black-and-white in the law books.
[I mailed this Notice to FTB on December 11, 2001, via Certified Mail, Return Receipt Requested.
[So far as I know anyone else dealing with the FTB may rely upon this information (at least until the Legislature changes the statutes).]

From: Thomas Murrell Thornhill III
c/o Box 1755, U.S.P.S.
Nevada City, California, United States of America
No telephone service maintained
December 11, 2001

To: KATHLEEN CONNELL
CLAUDE PARRISH
B. TIMOTHY GAGE
in their official capacities as members of
STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FRANCHISE TAX BOARD

c/o TAXPAYER ADVOCATE
P.O. Box 157
Rancho Cordova, CA 95741-0157

All interested parties please take NOTICE:

Declarant, Thomas Murrell Thornhill III, is a white Man over the age of 18 years of age, one of the people of the United States of America and one of the people of California, and does hereby Solemnly Declare and Affirm:

1.a. I present this information concerning STATE OF CALIFORNIA, FRANCHISE TAX BOARD in response to the Public Hearing Notice (a photocopy attached and incorporated herein as EXHIBIT 1) posted on the Internet at http://www.ftb.ca.gov/legal/hearings/121301.html [as of December 11, 2001] announcing the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD "annual hearing that is required by the Taxpayers' Bill of Rights (Revenue and Taxation Code Section 21001-21027)" ... "to give taxpayers and tax practioners the opportunity to present proposals that would change existing state income tax law, and/or improve FTB publications or the services that FTB provides to the public."
Said meeting is scheduled for December 13, 2001, at 9 A.M. at 5901 Green Valley Circle, Room 207, Culver City CA 90231-3652.
I am unable to attend the meeting due to short Notice of said meeting and its inconvenient-to-me location.
I am submitting my Statement by mail and I request that this Statement be included as Public Comment in the Record for said Hearing.

2.a. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2001), § 15700 reads (in part):

There is in the state government, in the Agricultural and Services Agency, a Franchise Tax Board consisting of the State Controller, the Director of Finance and the Chairman of the State Board of Equalization....

SEC. 120. Section 15700 of the Government Code is amended to read:
15700. There is in the state government, in the Agricultural and Services Agency, a Franchise Tax Board consisting of the State Controller, the Director of Finance and the Chairman of the State Board of Equalization....

SEC. 11. Section 15700 of the Government Code is amended to read:
15700. There is in the state government, in the Agricultural and Services Agency, a Franchise Tax Board, consisting of the State Controller, the Director of Finance and the Chairman of the State Board of Equalization....

3.b. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2001 Cumulative Pocket Part), § 12800 reads (in part):

There are in the state government the following agencies: State and Consumer Services; Business, Transportation and Housing; California Enviromental Protection: California Health and Human Services; Resources; Trade and Commerce; and Youth and Adult Correctional.
Whenever the term "Agricultural and Services Agency" appears in any law, it means the "State and Consumer Services Agency,"...

SEC. 1.6. Section 12800 of the Government Code is amended to read:
12800. There are in the state government the following agencies: State and Consumer Services; Business, Transportation and Housing; California Environmental Protection: Health and Welfare; Resources; Trade and Commerce; and Youth and Adult Correctional.
Whenever the term "Agricultural and Services Agency" appears in any law, it means the "State and Consumer Services Agency,"...

4.b. West's Ann.Cal.Gov. Code (2001 Cumulative Pocket Part), § 12804 reads (in part):

The Agricultural and Services Agency is hereby renamed the State and Consumer Services Agency....

SECTION 1. Section 12804 of the Government Code is amended to read:
12804. The Agricultural and Services Agency is hereby renamed the State and Consumer Services Agency...."

Sec. 9. A statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. If a statute embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void. A statute may not be amended by reference to its title. A section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended.

SEC. 9. A statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. If a statute embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void. A statute may not be amended by reference to its title. A section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended.

6.b. Declarant's second reasonable inference from the foregoing information is that, from the effective date of the 1992 legislation, the Franchise Tax Board is still located in the no-longer-legally-existent "Agricultural and Services Agency" (per Government Code § 15700) and is no longer "in state government" because the Agricultural and Services Agency is not in STATE OF CALIFORNIA government.

6.c. Declarant's third reasonable inference from the foregoing information is that, from the effective date of the 1992 legislation, the Franchise Tax Board has still not been properly or legally moved/relocated/reassigned to the "State and Consumer Services Agency".

7. The California courts have addressed the matter of unconstitutional attempts at the amendment of statutes:

(a) Article IV, section 24, of the constitution provides: "No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title; but in such case the act revised or section amended shall be re-enacted and published at length as revised or amended." Under the provision of this section it is clear that the amendment of a statute or section operates as a repeal of those parts of the statute or section which are not re-enacted. "The revising or amending act is intended as a substitute for the original statute or section, continuing in force that which is re-enacted and repealing what is omitted." (Pierce v. Solano County, 62 Cal.App. 465, 469 [217 Pac. 545, 546]).
Shearer v. Flannery (1924), 68 Cal.App. 91, 93-94.

(b) The California Constitution declares: "No law shall be revised or amended by reference to its title; but in such case the Act revised or section amended shall be re-enacted and published at length as revised or amended. . . . " (Art. IV, sec 24.) In the absence of such a provision, legislative bodies commonly amended an act or a section of it by directing the insertion, omission, or substitution of certain words, or by adding a provision, without setting out the entire context of the section as amended. (Fletcher v. Prather, 102 Cal. 413, 418 [36 P. 658]; and see notes in 55 L.R.A. 833, 855 86 Am.St.Rep. 276-279.) The objection to this method of amendment was the uncertainty and difficulty of correctly reading the original section as later changed.
To avoid the mischief inherent in the mechanics of this legislative process, the People of California imposed certain requirements upon the Legislature, but the provision should be reasonably construed and limited in its application to the specific evil which may not unreasonably be said to have been enacted contrary to the specific method. (Evans v. Superior Court, 215 Cal. 58, 62 [8 P. 467]; Heron v. Riley, 209 Cal. 507, 510 [289 P. 160]; McClure v. Riley, 198 Cal. 23, 26 [243 P. 429]; Beach v. Von Detten, 139 Cal. 462, 465 [73 P. 187]; Shields v. Oxnard Harbor Dist., 46 Cal.App.2d 477, 486 [116 P.2d 121].)...
People v. Western Fruit Growers (1943), 22 Cal.2d 494, 500-502.

(c) However, section 9 of article IV of the California Constitution provides: "A statute shall embrace but one subject, which shall be expressed in its title. If a statute embraces a subject not expressed in its title, only the part not expressed is void. A statute may not be amended by reference to its title. A section of a statute may not be amended unless the section is re-enacted as amended." (Italics added.)
In Glendale Unified School Dist. v. Vista Del Rossmoyne Co. (1965) 232 Cal.App.2d 493, 498 [42 Cal.Rptr. 899], the court said, with reference to the predecessor of section 9 (art. IV, section 24 of the pre-1966 Constitution): "The clear purpose of . . . provisions is to avoid the confusion which almost always results when amendments are attempted by way of directing the insertion, omission of substitution of certain words, or by adding a provision, without setting out the entire context of the section to be amended . . . ." The cases at bench illustrate the situation thus envisaged. Had the constitutional provision been followed, there would have been no question as to legislative intent. The disobedience of that provision gives rise to the problem herein submitted to us.
We conclude: that section 1 of chapter 1748 violates section 9 of article IV of the California Constitution: that, insofar as the issue herein involved is concerned, it was and is void: and, therefore, that it did not amend section 781 of the Welfare and Institutions Code.
Scott A. v. Superior Court (1972), 27 Cal.App.3d 292, 295, 103 Cal.Rptr. 683.

9. As a reasonable Man, I believe that this situation seriously degrades the rights of California "taxpayers" and of the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD.
I suggest that the FRANCHISE TAX BOARD work with the California Legislature to immediately correct the situation.

I certify under the laws of the State of California, that the foregoing is true and correct.

Dated: _________________________________

At: _____________________________________

__________________________________________

Attachments: EXHIBIT 1 through EXHIBIT 6

[Naturally, our dear friends at FTB somehow managed to omit any mention of my correspondence to FTB in the Minutes of the Taxpayer Bill of Rights meeting, December 13, 2001.]

19501. The Franchise Tax Board shall administer and enforce Part 10 (commencing with Section 17001), Part 10.7 (commencing with Section 21001), Part 11 (commencing with Section 23001), and this part. For this purpose, it may divide the state into a reasonable number of districts, in each of which a branch office or offices may be maintained during all or part of the time as may be necessary.

10.c. I reasonably infer that said districts have not been lawfully established to date.