Hiding Evidence – Page 2

July 7, 2023July 16, 2024

FTB’s Response to My 2022 Annual Taxpayer Bill of Rights Requests

As is required under Revenue and Taxation Code (RTC) 21006(a)(2), every year, the Franchise Tax Board allows the general public to make requests for changes to laws, policies and/or procedures that pertain to FTB.

I participated in the December 2022 meeting by submitting a set of requests in writing on November 29, 2022 and an oral request of the same items at the meeting held on December 8, 2022. Here is the video of my speech from my perspective:

The full FTB Board meeting is here. My speech is from 14:25 – 19:46.

On January 31, 2023, FTB provided a written response to my request. For Item #4, they stated “FTB will provide you with a supplemental response by February 28, 2023, or sooner.”

On February 2, 2023, I sent my own response to FTB’s written response. In it, I stated:

July 1, 2023August 29, 2024

Update on the California Bar Association Complaint Against Deputy Attorney General Anna Barsegyan

Quick summary of what has happened with the Bar so far regarding Anna Barsegyan:

On November 18, 2021, I filed a Bar Complaint against Anna Barsegyan for harassment and retaliation. The Bar refused to open an investigation into the Complaint on the basis that, since there was a judge on the case, the Bar was absolved of its responsibilities to provide oversight of Ms. Barsegyan.

In December 2022, I filed another Bar Complaint against Anna Barsegyan. There were a slew of new charges, including conspiring to commit suborning perjury (in layman’s terms this means setting someone up as a patsy) and advising her client to break federal and state laws in order to hide evidence of criminal activity from the court. This time, the Bar sent a letter stating “Your recent correspondence presents no new evidence which would merit reopening your complaint.”

I had a back and forth email conversation with Bar employee Roy Kim, in which I stated “… I filed the new complaint, which contained many new allegations against Ms. Barsegyan that had not been included in the original complaint #21-O-14331.

…I found this denial letter to be disturbingly vague. It appears to me that you are trying to sweep these new — and very serious — allegations under the rug by pretending that I never made them.

I request that the Complaint submitted on December 19, 2022 to be treated as new Complaint, that a new file is opened for this new Complaint, that a proper investigation be done regarding ALL charges presented in the new Complaint…”

The Bar responded by agreeing to open a new Complaint.

December 29, 2022April 16, 2023

The Judge’s Verdict in the SDSC Case Was Blatantly Corrupt

Last year, I posted a video of a legal scholar named Dave Myrland who talked about how the tax man owns the court. I also wrote an article about how the legal system has been hijacked by government agencies who are unlawfully extracting extra revenue for their agencies. In my first appeal of penalties, interest and fees, I saw that the Office of Tax Appeal judges covered up the Franchise Tax Board’s bona fide criminal activities with an extremely deceptive and evasive verdict. It was no surprise when it happened again in the San Diego Superior Court case.

The biggest red flag that the case was rigged against me was that the judge denied an extension of the final hearing date. On January 23, 2022, my father got sick with a MRSA staph infection. He died on February 7. On February 18, FTB and I filed a stipulation to continue the hearing until September. The judge denied the stipulation on March 1. Since I thought the extension was a done deal, I focused on burial arrangements, moving my father’s belongings out of his apartment, probate, etc. When I found out the extension was denied, I only had 10 days to complete and file the extensive paperwork that was due. A paralegal of 23 years told me that she has never before seen a judge deny a hearing extension when both sides stipulated. And the fact that the denial took so long was suspicious.

Here is the tentative ruling, which was issued the day before the trial. He threw out the majority of the documents/evidence that I had submitted on the grounds of technical violations. The Opposition to FTB’s Motion for Sanctions exceeded the page limit and my Opposition to Summary Judgment was missing a table of contents and an authentication. He could have ordered me to re-submit these items and extend the hearing date, but he chose not to.

Just like with The OTA case, the judge refused to acknowledge the existence of FTB’s questionable business practices and refused to address the laws that I cited that proved that these business practices were unlawful. He also refused to acknowledge that the arguments the DOJ made were based on lies and deception, and that FTB had committed multiple counts of perjury and had improperly withheld and redacted documents to hide evidence. Likewise, the judge refused to acknowledge that the DOJ had posted my husband’s and my social security numbers online. If I had done the things that FTB/DOJ had done, the judge would have thrown me in jail. And yet for FTB/DOJ, he just pretended as if none of it had happened.

In the oral arguments, I asked the judge to amend his ruling. Here is the summary of the oral arguments:

December 26, 2022December 28, 2022

My Opposition to FTB’s Motion for Sanctions Dated 09-01-2021 and My Request for Sanctions

On September 1, 2021, FTB filed a Motion for Sanctions against me in a blatant attack of retaliation, harassment and obstruction of justice.

On March 7, 2021, I filed my Opposition to their Motion for Sanctions and my own request for sanctions against FTB for:

Violation of Code Civ. Proc., §128.5 and §128.7(b): Motion is Frivolous (page 30)
Violation of CA Rules of the Court 1.201: Failure to Redact Personal Information (page 32)
Violation of CRC 3.1348: Failure to Provide Discovery (page 39)
Chelsea Hubbard: Perjury, Withholding Evidence and Improper Redactions (page 40)
Keith Swank: Perjury and Failure to Furnish Information (page 53)
Grace LeBleu: False Statements and Improper Redactions (page 59)

December 23, 2022

Bar Complaint Filed Against Deputy Attorney General Anna Barsegyan

On December 19, 2022, I filed a Bar Complaint against against Deputy Attorney General Anna Barsegyan where I requested that she be disbarred. Here is a quick summary of the most egregious of the allegations in the Bar Complaint. The evidence that I included to substantiate the allegations was the second Federal Criminal Complaint that I filed against her, all the evidence for the FCC, and the DOJ email chain.

I believe that Anna Barsegyan crossed the line from representing her client into actively participating in her client’s criminal cover-up. To accomplish this cover up, she used an assortment of unlawful tactics, including Harassment, Retaliation, Violation of Rights, Abuse of the Court System, and Obstruction of Justice. In doing so, she repeatedly violated the American Bar Association rules 8.4 (a), (c) and (g).

December 23, 2022December 25, 2022

I Have Filed a Second Federal Criminal Complaint!

On March 7, 2022, I filed another Federal Criminal Complaint (FCC) with the Federal Treasury Inspector General, the Sacramento Grand Jury, and the Federal Bureau of Investigation. This time it was against two more Franchise Tax Board employees and Department of Justice employee Deputy Attorney General Anna Barsegyan.

October 8, 2021November 6, 2022

How FTB Covers Up Their Accounting Irregularities

As you all know, I filed a Motion to Compel on Specially Prepared Interrogatories, Set #1: Clarification of Policy and Procedure. I also prepared a second set of Interrogatories to address FTB’s accounting irregularities.

And I prepared a set of documents called “Requests for Admissions” to help clarify the methods that FTB uses to cover up the assorted policy/procedure and accounting irregularities that were addressed in the Interrogatories. Here are the questions. Many of the questions refer to attached documents. Here are documents pages 1 – 18 and 19 – 35.

October 7, 2021December 28, 2022

FTB Is Retaliatory Harassing Me

On Sunday, August 29, 2021, I attempted to file a police report with the San Diego Police Department against two FTB staff for overcharging me interest, which is the crime of fraud. Here is the proof of fraud by Alexis Bear and by Carrey Burton-Beilby. FYI, a police report is an important first step in getting a grand jury investigation launched. As a side note, I later found out that the right venue is the FBI’s website, and I did file reports against Bear and Burton-Beilby with the FBI.

On Monday, August 30, 2021, Deputy Attorney-General Anna Barsgeyan, who is FTB’s attorney for the civil case that is pending in San Diego Superior Court, made a reservation for a Motions for Sanctions hearing in our civil case. On Wednesday, September 1, 2021, she filed her Motion, requesting that the judge stop me from gathering evidence for my federal criminal complaint and that he penalize me $8,000 as a punishment for gathering the evidence that I did. She also posted my and my husband’s full social security numbers on a public website.

October 3, 2021February 10, 2024

The Playbook That Government Agencies Use To Get Away With Criminal Schemes

I watched a video about a woman in Arizona (AZ) who had her children stolen by Child Protective Services (CPS).

As I watched the video, my jaw dropped as I realized that CPS in AZ used strikingly similar tactics to violate the laws as the Franchise Tax Board (FTB) in California (CA) used against me. It can’t be a coincidence that my experience was so similar to hers when it was a completely different issue, involving a completely different agency, with completely different circumstances.

I am starting to realize that there must be a playbook of tactics that government agencies use to extract extra revenue for themselves. Obviously, the specific tactics are customized by the agencies, but the general playbook appears to be identical: 1. Lay a trap, 2. Deny due process 3. Rig the justice system and 4. Have other government agencies cover it up.

May 12, 2021December 22, 2022

Fraudulent Statement By FTB Regarding Demand Penalties

So much stuff has come out recently in my court case. A longer post will come next month, but I wanted to share something that I know is a fraud that is systemically perpetuated by FTB. Below is a copy/paste of an exchange of information with FTB that I submitted as part of my court case (the full document is here). I hope other people currently facing bogus Demand Penalties can use it to help them in their own fight against FTB’s corruption. Here is the list of laws that are referenced below.

SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO 6A: The attached page 9 is a page from FTB’s standard operations manuals entitled Demand Penalty. It states “a penalty will not be imposed if any of the following are met:… We do not assess the penalty when the return has a zero total tax liability.” Could you please clarify whether this means the penalty won’t be imposed if there was never any tax owed for the tax year or whether this means that the penalty won’t be imposed if there is no outstanding balance on that year’s tax liability.

FTB RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY NO. 6A: Under Revenue and Taxation Code section 19133, a demand penalty is imposed if a taxpayer fails to timely respond to demand notices in the manner required. Demand penalties are imposed as required by law before consideration of any payments or credits. The demand penalty is computed at 25- percent of the total tax liability before any prepayments or credits are applied to reduce the tax liability. Thus, any payments and/or credits made by Plaintiff are irrelevant in the determination of the imposition of demand penalties under California law.

ARGUMENT FOR COMPLELLING RESPONSE TO SPECIAL INTERROGATORY 6A: FTB has misrepresented what the law says by making two deceptive statements and one false statement in the section above. In the first sentence, Mr. Swank omitted pertinent portions of Revenue and Tax Code 19133. In the second and third sentences, he conflated two separate issues as if they were one and the same. The fourth sentence is false, and only appears to be true as a result of the deceptive and misleading statements that preceded it.