Mario Anthony Sanfilippo
c/o 39148 Rising Hill Dr. 
Temecula, California Republic [92591]

Plaintiff

EXHIBIT # 3 SEAL

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

Mario Anthony Sanfilippo,        ) CASE NO. 	_________
                                 ) 		
          Plaintiff,             ) ACTION FOR TRESPASS/
                                 ) NOTICE AND DEMAND
              Vs.                ) (VERIFIED)
                                 ) 
Selvi Stanislaus, and            ) Judge:  Tribunal
State of California, Franchise   ) 
Tax Board, and                   ) Dept.:   X33
San Diego County Credit Union    ) 
Levy Dept. CEO Teresa Campbell   ) 
          Defendants.            ) 
---------------------------------)------------------------------

NOTICE AND DEMAND
1. Mario Anthony Sanfilippo (hereinafter "Plaintiff") is one of the people of California, and in this court of record complains of Selvi Stanislaus (hereinafter "Defendant"), and State of California, Franchise Tax Board Executive (hereinafter "Defendant’s Agency"), and San Diego County Credit Union, levy Dept. CEO Teresa Campbell (hereinafter “Codefendant”) who are each (summoned) to answer the said Plaintiff in a plea of trespass count charges to wit; (both defendants committed injury with intent; see*; the cease and desist order*); 
1. Count 1 charge of trespass by way of Robbery; illegal and unauthorized search and seizure Levy, (Levy, Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a)(21))and falsely claiming that the plaintiff is a taxpayer,(Taxpayer Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a)(14)),through the use of entity, in all Cap: MARIO ANTHONY SANFILIPPO; tradename/ trademark (See*; cease and desist order*) employer or person; (person Title 26 USC Sec7701(a)(1)), Partnership, (Partnership Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a)(2)), Corporation, (Corporation Title 26 USC Sec7701 (a)(3)),United States,(United States Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a) (9)),State,(State Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a)(10),      Internal Revenue Code,(Internal revenue Code Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a) (29)), An “entity” refers to a “person” or organization possessing separate and distinct legal rights, such as an individual, partnership, or corporation. The nexus between the in all cap;(See* cease and desist order*) tradename/trademark; entity, person, taxpayer, employer, United States, State, levy, and the Internal Revenue Code is contained in the construction of the title; Title 26 USC Sec 7806; Construction of title; (a)Cross references; The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, “or other provisions of law”(means any area of law where there is a nexus, relationship, or principle of Noscitur a sociis, or Principal of ejusdem generis is applied) as the definition of a state, clearly describes,(State, Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a)(10); The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions (of law) of this title;)where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and “shall be given no legal effect”( meaning no legal or lawful authority no jurisdiction, no standing, no controversy) (b)Arrangement and classification; No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title,(meaning the entity MARIO ANTHONY SANFILIPPO tradename/trademark; in all cap, taxpayer, person, United States, State, resident, Levy, or any provision in law, with a relationship, nexus, to the title 26, shall be given no legal affect, according to the title’s classification: no inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn; which eliminates all possible authority and provides the defendant, the defendants agency’ the United States, State, or codefendant SDCCU levy dept. No legal or lawful authority or jursdiction, standing, controversy, or nexus over the plaintiff, and any unwarranted actions against the plaintiff are illegal and intent full in nature). All illegal actions described herein are criminal and their intent was to injure; therefore the plaintiff has the legal and lawful right to defend against these illegal malicious actions;
Judicial notice; review; Title 26 USC Sec 7806; please see exhibit # 2;   
2. Count 2 charge of trespass by way of FRUAD,RICO/RACKETEERING, and CONSPIRACY; operating with no jursdiction no standing no authority and no controversy and claiming false authority, jursdiction, standing, and controversy in concert with all defendants; the defendant the defendants agency’s department, the United States, State, and codefendant SDCCU levy dept. all conspired in concert with malicious intent to injure plaintiff; as illustrated herein and committed said breaches of criminal code, and code Title 26; as described herein; Title 18 USC Sec 1001; Title 18 USC Sec 1964(C); Title 18 USC Sec 241; Title 26 USC Sec 7806; 
3. Count 3 charge of trespass by way of deprivation of rights under color of law; and Treason on one of the people of California Republic (combined actions by defendants illustrated herein; allowing unelected and unaccountable agencies and agents to dictate and shape policy that violates due process rights, of life, liberty, property, and private property,); The Defendants acted in concert to deprive the plaintiff of his rights under color of law; However when the light of law is exposed and expressed; no such authority exists for the defendants to use or have in their possession to exercise that authority; Title 26 USC Sec 7806; Title 18 USC Sec 242; Title 18 USC Sec 3571; Clearly; Ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. The level of deceit employed through the use of non-disclosure contracts; and the use of term’s “United States citizen” “taxpayer” “person” “employer” to gain jurisdiction, authority, standing, and controversy when legally and lawfully non is present; furthermore any presumptions, inferences, or implication of legislative construction is prohibited according to the code Title 26 USC Sec 7806; Then (defendants agency) to direct agents with the use of terms “employer” “person’ “levy” all of which are prohibited by title 26 USC Sec 7806; then applying this and  directing the codefendants with these tools committing said breaches illustrated herein is malicious on the part of the defendant, the defendants agency department, the United States, State, and the codefendant; the codefendant must realize and understand that title 26 USC Sec 7806 prohibited their authority, jursdiction, standing, or controversy; the actions exercised by the codefendant to seize with intent and in concert with the defendants has trespassed and injured the plaintiff; by depriving one the people of their rights, their birth rights, their private property and freedom illegally with no jurisdiction, no authority, no standing, and no controversy, committing these trespasses illustrated herein on the plaintiff with malicious intent. Armed with this knowledge the plaintiff is committed to press these trespass charges of malicious intent to injure on the case, to wit;
                        LAW OF THE CASE
THE COURT takes Judicial Cognizance and decrees law as follows: 
1. All items mentioned in California Evidence Code Sections 451 and 452, [among which is included the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure].
2. "It is the public policy of this state that public agencies exist to aid in the conduct of the people's business....The people of this state do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.”  California Government Code, Section 11120. ....”The people of this State do not yield their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.”  California Government Code Section 54950.                                 3. "...at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern but themselves....”  CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall 419, 454, 1 L Ed 440, 455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.                            4. This enumeration of rights shall not be construed to impair or deny others retained by the people. California Constitution, Article 1, Declaration of Rights Sec 21 Article XI Miscellaneous Provisions Sec 13.Taxation shall be equal and uniform throughout the State. California Constitution, Oct 12, 1849.                                                         5. "Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them."  Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.
6. "Whereas, the people of California have presented a constitution....and which, on due examination, is found to be republican in its form of government...."  Act [of Congress] for the Admission of California into the Union, Volume 9, Statutes at Large, Page 452,  
7. "Republican government.  One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated.  In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162, 22 L.Ed. 627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.
8. "The State of California is an inseparable part of the United States of America, and the United States Constitution is the supreme law of the land."  California Constitution, Article 3, Sec. 1.
9. Constitution for the United States of America, Article VII. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re- examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.
10. "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding."  Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.
11. "A 'court of record' is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it..."  Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex Parte Gladhill, 8 Metc., Mass., 171, per Shaw, C. J.
12. "The following persons are magistrates: ...The judges of the superior courts...."  California Penal Code, Sec. 808. 
13. "'...our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgement in all their points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law....' Confirmatio Cartarum, November 5, 1297" "Sources of Our Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American Bar Foundation.
14. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may have a fifth. They are: A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231] D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426] E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
15. The word "court" is often employed in statutes otherwise than in its strict technical sense, and is applied to various tribunals not judicial in their character, State vs. Howat, 107 kan. 423, 191 P 585, 589;
16. "We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.'  Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).  See Dioguardi v. Durning, 139 F.2D 774 (CA2 1944)."  Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519.
17. RESERVATION OF SOVEREIGNTY: It is one thing to find that the Tribe has agreed to sell the right to use the land and take valuable minerals from it, and quite another to find that the Tribe has abandoned its sovereign powers simply because it has not expressly reserved them through a contract. To presume that a sovereign forever waives the right to exercise one of its powers unless it expressly reserves the right to exercise that power in a commercial agreement turns the concept of sovereignty on its head. Merrion v. Jicarilla Apache Tribe; Amoco Production Company v. Jicarilla Apache Indian Tribe, 455 U.S. 130, 131, 102 S.Ct. 894, 71 L.Ed.2d 21 (1981)
18. Title 18 USC 241: Conspiracy against rights If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, 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;
19. TITLE 18, U.S.C. SECTION 242 : Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States,
20. Title 18 USC Sec 1001 FRAUD, contracts, torts. Any trick or artifice employed by one person to induce another to fall into an error, or to detain him in it, so that he may make an agreement contrary to his interest.
21. Penhallow v. Doane’s Administrators 3 U.S. 54; 1 L.Ed. 57; 3 Dall. 54; and, b. "the contracts between them" involve U.S. citizens, which are deemed as Corporate Entities: c. "Therefore, the U.S. citizens residing in one of the states of the union, are classified as property and franchises of the federal government as an "individual entity""
22. An “entity” refers to a “person” or organization possessing separate and distinct legal rights, such as an individual, partnership, or corporation. An entity can, among other things, own property, engage in business, enter into contracts, pay taxes, sue and be sued. An entity is capable of operating legally, suing and making decisions through “agents”, e.g. a corporation, a state, or an association.
a. Person - defined at Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a) (1) only referencing statutory legal fictions: The term “person” shall be construed to mean and include an individual, a trust, estate, partnership, association, company or corporation.
b. Taxpayer - defined at Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a) (14) references any 'person' subject: The term “taxpayer” means any person subject to any internal revenue tax.
c. United States citizen – defined at Title 26 USC Sec7701 (a) (30) (A); a citizen or resident of the United States,
d. United States – defined at Title 26 USC Sec 7701 (a) (9); the term “United States” when used in a geographical sense includes only the States and the District of Columbia.
e. State – defined at Title 26 USC Sec 7701 (a)(10); The term “State” shall be construed to include the District of Columbia, where such construction is necessary to carry out provisions of this title.
f. Internal Revenue Code – defined at Title 26 USC Sec 7701 (a) (29); the term “Internal Revenue Code of 1986” means this title, and the term “Internal Revenue Code of 1939” means the Internal Revenue Code enacted February 10, 1939, as amended.
g. Levy – defined at Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a) (21); The term “levy” includes the power of distraint and seizure by any means.
h. Corporation – defined at Title 26 USC Sec7701 (a) (3); the term “corporation” includes associations, joint-stock companies, and insurance companies.
i. Partnership – defined at Title 26 USC Sec 7701 (a) (2); The term “partnership” includes a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or other unincorporated organization, through or by means of which any business, financial operation, or venture is carried on, and which is not, within the meaning of this title, a trust or estate or a corporation; and the term “partner” includes a member in such a syndicate, group, pool, joint venture, or organization.
23. Title 26 USC Sec 7806 Construction of title; (a)Cross references; The cross references in this title to other portions of the title, or other provisions of law, where the word “see” is used, are made only for convenience, and shall be given no legal effect. (b)Arrangement and classification; No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the location or grouping of any particular section or provision or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law. (Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 917.)
24. Principle of ‘Noscitur a Sociis; the principle of Noscitur a Sociis is a rule of construction. It is one of the rules of language used by court to interpret legislation. This means that, the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it. In other words, the meaning of a word is to be judged by the company it keeps.
25. Principal of ejusdem generis; Ejusdem generis (ee-joose-dem gen-ris) is a Latin phrase that means “of the same kind.” The statutory and constitutional construction principle of “ejusdem generis” states that where general words or phrases follow a number of specific words or phrases, the general words are specifically construed as limited and apply only to persons or things of the same kind or class as those expressly mentioned.
26. Nexus Law and Legal Definition: Generally, a nexus refers to a connection. In case law, the term may appear when discussing the legality of a governmental restriction, and whether the means of restriction is justifiable in light of the right being restricted. A nexus is often required in all types of cases to establish jurisdiction, apply conflict of laws issues, establish due process in criminal cases, prove causation, etc.
27. Title 28 USC 1361: Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty §1361. Action to compel an officer of the United States to perform his duty. The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of any action in the nature of mandamus to compel an officer or employee of the United States or any agency thereof to perform a duty owed to the plaintiff.
28. MANDAMUS, practice. The name of a writ, the principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, we command. It is a command issuing in the name of the sovereign authority from a superior court having jurisdiction, and is directed to some person, corporation, or, inferior court, within the jurisdiction of such superior court, requiring them to do some particular thing therein specified, which appertains to their office and duty, and which the superior court has previously determined, or at least supposes to be consonant to right and justice. 20 Pick. 484; 21 Pick. 258; Dudley, 37; 4 Humph. 437.
29. Absolute Judicial immunity is a myth. A Judge does not have absolute immunity. Judicial immunity does not apply when the following conditions exist: 1. when he is performing a non-judicial act, or 2. when he acts in the complete absence of all jurisdiction. Hirschfeld v. Rogers Is a state court judge, who has been individually divested of all jurisdiction over a case by virtue of being affirmatively disqualified, who refuses to acknowledge his own divestment, and thereafter commits unconstitutional torts solely under color of the case in which he knows, or should know, that he has lost all jurisdiction, subject to 42 U.S.C. 1981-88 liability.
30. Title 42 USC Sec 1986. Action for neglect to prevent states: "Every person who, having knowledge that any wrongs conspired or to be done . . . and having power to prevent or aid in preventing . . . Neglects or refuses so to do . . . shall be liable to the party injured. . . " "...an officer may be held liable in damages to any person injured in consequence of a breach of any of the duties connected with his office...the liability for nonfeasance, misfeasance, and for malfeasance in office is in his 'individual', not his official capacity." 70 Am. Jur. 2nd Sec. 50, VII Civil Liability. 
30. FEDERAL RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, 28 USCA: "every final judgment shall grant the relief to which the party in whose favor it is rendered is entitled, even if the party has not demanded such relief in his pleadings." U.S. V. WHITE COUNTY BRIDGE COMMISSION (1960), 2 Fr Serv 2d 107, 275 F2d 529, 535
31. The court has granted a show cause order; the defendants, have 30 days to respond after receiving notice and demand to show cause; A Show Cause Order mandates that an individual or corporation make a court appearance to explain why the court should not take a proposed action. In the event that such individual or corporation does not appear or provide adequate reasons why the court should take no action, action will be taken by the court.

Remedy Redress
1. THE FOLLOWING IS A PRELIMINARY LIST OF U.S. CODE VIOLATIONS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO - WITH MINIMUM FINES THAT WOULD APPLY TO ANY PUBLIC AGENCY OR PRIVATE BANKING FIRM AGENT SERVANT OFFICER WHO HARMS THE PUBLIC IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPITACY; DO TO THE FACT THERE ARE TWO DEFENDANTS THESE FINES MAY APPLY EQUALLY;  
Breach	                         Penalty	         Authority 
CONSPIRACY “40 YEARS* OPEN BREACH”   $10,000.00    18 USC 241*                                        
DEPRIVATION OF* RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW $40,000. 18 USC 242*
40 YEARS OF DEPRIVATION $1,000.00 PER YEAR =$40,000.00
FRAUD	   “40YEAR*”             $10,000.00     18 USC 1001* 
RICO/RACKETEERING (CIVIL)*       $25,000.00	    18 USC 1964(c)                              
TREASON (combined actions above)* and allowing unelected and unaccountable agencies and agents to dictate and shape policy that violates due process rights	$250,000.00    18 USC 3571*
Foot note * 40years plus of open breach VIOLATIONS ILLUSTRATED HEREIN;
The second maxim is "Equality before the law" or more precisely ALL ARE EQUAL UNDER THE LAW. (God's Law - Moral and Natural Law). Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24: 17-21; Deut. 1; 17, 19:21; Mat. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. "No one is above the law". This is founded on both Natural and Moral law and is binding on everyone. For someone to say, or acts as though, he is "above the law" is insane. This is the major insanity in the world today. Man continues to live, act, believe, and form systems, organizations, governments, laws and processes which presume to be able to supercede or abrogate Natural or Moral Law. But, under commercial law, Natural and Moral Law are binding on everyone, and no one can escape it. Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of the few.
The court takes judicial cognizance of damages inflicted on to the plaintiff due to said breaches committed by both defendants SDCCU, and FTB as illustrated herein;
 1. The first point the court wants to make clear to both (SDCCU, and FTB) defendants you must Cease and desist all operations which are violating the plaintiff’s rights of life, tranquility, liberty, property, and private property. Second, the court is aware that there are no binding contractual agreements between SDCCU, or the FTB and the plaintiff. Also there are no past or future income taxes owed concerning the plaintiff. Furthermore the court wants to make clear to the defendants, concerning the plaintiff, there is nothing to speak of which is inferencing, or has implication, or presumption of legislative construction as far as any income taxes are concerned. The defendants have no authority according to the code in (Title 26 USC Sec 7806) which this notice and demand has illustrated. However the court wants the defendants to understand there are criminal breaches which damaged the plaintiff. Furthermore the court is at odds with the clear negliance and criminal activity conducted by both defendants SDCCU CEO Teresa Campbell and FTB Executive Selvi Stanislaus against the plaintiff who has suffered the breach violations illustrated herein. The court demands a letter of apology from both defendants. Which illustrates that the plaintiff has caused no harm and that there is no controversy, standing, and no legal authority to claim that the plaintiff is a taxpayer, because plaintiff is not a taxpayer or that the plaintiff owes your agency(FTB Defendant) any taxes and that the Bank(SDCCU defendant)has any authority to levy. The plaintiff is “exempt” from any past illegal tax claims or any future illegal tax claims according to the code; Title 26 USC Sec 7806; which has no legal affect. These points must be reflected in the letter of apology. These points would leave the plaintiff “exempt” from any and all claims of illegal income taxes. The letter must be specific to direct any future “employer” or “person” should the plaintiff have to defend his rights in the future from illegal taxes claims and levy’s. This letter would provide documentation to support plaintiff’s legal and lawful position of tax exempt. See Title 26 USC Sec 7806; or Cease and Desist order;    
2. The court demands a full refund of all illegal taxes ever paid by the plaintiff to Franchise Tax Board over the last 40 years. The estimated refund or return of illegal taxes paid by plaintiff. At an estimate average of $ 1,000.00 per year, over last 40years; 40 years = $40,000.00 forty thousand dollars; the court adds the defendants breaches of; CODE VIOLATIONS, BUT NOT LIMITED TO – WITH MINUMIM FINES THAT WOULD APPLY TO ANY PUBLIC AGENCY OR PRIVATE BANKING FIRM AGENT SERVANT OFFICER WHO HARMS THE PUBLIC IN THEIR OFFICIAL CAPITACY; plus CONSPIRACY breach $10,000.00 plus DEPRIVATION OF* RIGHTS breach $ $40,000.00 plus FRAUD breach $10,000.00 plus RICO/RACKETEERING breach $25,000.00 plus TREASON breach $250,000.00 = total of breaches $375,000.00 Three Hundred and Seventy five thousand dollars in total principal damages not including punitive damages. See code violations Notice of intent; exhibit 5 
Judicial notice: California courts have held that the limits on non-economic malpractice damages do not prevent the awarding of punitive damages. Baker v. Sadick, 208 Cal. Rptr. 676, (App. 4. Dist. 1984).
3. All claims are stated in us dollars which means that a us dollar will be defined, for this purpose as a one ounce silver coin of .999 pure silver or the equivalent par value as established by law or the exchange rate, as set by the us mint, whichever is the higher amount, for a certified one ounce silver coin (us silver dollar) at the time of the first day of default as set forth herein; if the claim is to be paid in Federal Reserve Notes, Federal Reserve Notes will only be assessed at Par Value as indicated above. after total damages will be assessed as the total principal amount of the damages as set forth herein times three (3) for a total of all damages as set forth in action for trespass notice and demand #3 added to three (3) times the damages for punitive or other additional damages;
The court takes judicial cognizance of the total damages; $375,000.00 times (3 for punitive damages) = $ 1,125,000.00 million dollars in damages, which both defendants must settle.  The court will consider punitive damages increase based on 40 plus years of non-disclosure as far as the relationship to the plaintiffs nexus, and the clear absence of any jursdiction the defendants neglected to consider and the clear lack of legal understanding of code. Not to mention the people of California rights. The court demands that defendants understand ignorance of the law is not a legal defense. The court is cognizant that the plaintiff has clearly illustrated his position and the lack of any authority, jurisdiction, standing, or controversy on    either defendant’s (SDCCU or FTB) position. The court is of the position that through litigation the plaintiff can prove his position and achieve punitive damages higher than illustrated herein and consistent with that favorable verdict. However the court has granted the defendants the opportunity to settle this notice and demand out of court. This notice and demand can be settled out of court by sending a check to the plaintiff for $500,000.00 thousand dollars; if notice is settle in under 60 days from receiving notice. If over 60 day’s settlement increases up to $750,000.00 Thousand dollars; if past 90 days total of damages $ 1,125,000.00 million dollars; Also SDCCU owes the plaintiff a full refund of all funds sequestered outside of this damages claim. Or in addition to. Also the plaintiff will ask defendant SDCCU to close account and relationship with plaintiff has ended. Note;(defendants 50% by 50% on settlement)                       
The COURT takes judicial cognizance of the ruling on the charges illustrated herein this notice and demand;    
1. Count 1 charge of trespass by way of Robbery; illegal and unauthorized search and seizure Levy, (Levy, Title 26 USC Sec 7701(a) (21)) and falsely claiming that the plaintiff is a taxpayer; Verdict; Guilty as charged
2. Count 2 charge of trespass by way of FRUAD,RICO/RACKETEERING, and CONSPIRACY; operating with no jursdiction no standing no authority and no controversy; Verdict; Guilty as charged
3. Count 3 charge of trespass by way of deprivation of rights under color of law; and Treason on one of the people of California Republic; Verdict; Guilty as charged
The Court Wish is to grant plaintiff; Relief from both defendants in total damages set herein of; $ 1,125,000.00 million dollars; see; settlement offer outline page 26
Discussion and conclusions of Law; The plaintiff has the legal and lawful right to defend his rights. This notice and demand is a clear defense against rights being violated. You could also assert that it points out criminal activity perpetrated on the people of California. The defendants cannot fault the plaintiff for the assertion to protect against clear violations of code. Which provided the defendants no authority to make claims or assertions of power to enforce, exact obedience, command, or determine a judgement. When the code proclaims there is “no legal effect” present authority and power to claim and assert, exact obedience, are prohibited. However these prohibitions did not protect the plaintiff from injury. The clear negligence by the defendants or ignorance of the law. Damaged the plaintiff and because of this, the damages must be settled. 
SIMPLEX DICTUM
5.  Power is never without responsibility. And when authority derives in part from big Government's thumb on the scales, the exercise of that power by private or public persons, banks, agency’s serving the public, or agency’s personnel, becomes closely akin, in some respects, to its exercise by big Government itself.
6. IN COMMERCE TRUTH IS SOVEREIGN. (Exodus 20:16; Ps. 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8). Truth is sovereign --and the Sovereign tells only the truth. Your word is your bond. If truth were not sovereign in commerce, i.e., all human action and inter relations, there would be no basis for anything.
 7. I am Mario Anthony Sanfilippo.  I am the plaintiff in this case. I have personal knowledge of the foregoing facts and am competent to the truth of these facts. I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct, and that this declaration was executed in the county of Riverside, California republic, on _______ /____ /______
							  Respectfully submitted
 
                                   ___________________________
Mario Anthony Sanfilippo

 The Court takes judicial cognizance of the following; 
                                   REPUBLIC VESTED IN WE THE PEOPLE 
I pledge allegiance to the flag of the United States of America, and to the Republic for which it stands, one Nation under God, indivisible, with liberty and justice for all."
  
“Jurisdiction means the power of a court to hear and determine a cause, which power is conferred by a constitution or statute, or both.” Penn v. Com. 528 S.E.2d 179, 32 Va. App. 422 (2000)

Please Note: MARIO ANTHONY SANFILIPPO agrees to hold harmless Mario Anthony Sanfilippo the natural flesh and blood human being for all claims and liabilities under private contract between the parties.

Please Note: Mario Anthony Sanfilippo does not authorize the recording of his voice at any time for any purpose nor does he consent to be contacted by telephone and shall enforce his copyright in all instances such as copyright infringement or trademark/tradename violation no authorization for the use MARIO ANTHONY SANFILIPPO Trademark/Tradename, is implied, granted or admitted.
Please Note: all correspondence from this point must be by mail only.

“The truth is like a lion; you don’t have to defend it. Let it loose; it will defend itself.”
 Lewis Cipher of hippo 
"It is against equity for freemen not to have the free disposal of their own property."    -Maxim of Law
Exempt   ĭg-zĕmpt′ transitive verb 1. To free from an obligation, duty, or liability to which others are subject. 2. To set apart; isolate.

."Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court."  Magna Carta, Article 34.

A court of record is a "superior court."
A court not of record is an "inferior court."
“Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652

SETTLEMENT OFFER OUTLINE
Settlement in the notice and demand agreement letter; 
1. Letter of apology from FTB which states plaintiff has caused no harm and is within his rights to defend his rights of life, liberty, tranquility, property, and private property and is found “exempt” from any and all past and any future taxes claims. 

FTB Executive /_____________________________mark box/ agreement signature/
 
2. Letter of apology from SDCCU which states plaintiff has caused no harm and is within his rights to defend his rights of life, liberty, tranquility, property, and private property, and is “exempt” from any “levy” and his private property will be returned ASAP. 

SDCCU CEO/_______________________________mark box/ agreement signature/

3. Settlement out of court; FOR BOTH SDCCU (CEO) & FTB (Executive); under 60 days at $500,000.00[ ] thousand dollars; If over 60 day’s settlement increases up to $750,000.00[ ] thousand dollars; if past 90 days total of damages $1,125,000.00[ ] million dollars; The court estimate is if the defendants worked together to violate plaintiffs rights and committed criminal activities, they can work together 50% by 50% to settle with plaintiff.  The defendants can send all correspondents to the address of the plaintiff for review, along with the settlement check. Which will stop any actions for Trespass. 
Sign agreement and send with letter & settlement mark box above for 50% responsibility 
 
Mario Anthony Sanfilippo c/o 39148 Rising Hill Dr. Temecula, California Republic [92591]
Plaintiff
   
"Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin." – Maxim of Law