04/08/201 0 14:5 2 FAX 202493514 2 FA A DM S 21001/00 8



# IVE D nco T nM^vMSFORWlO N To : FA A Decisionmake r

- :" : D o •'• . .'iC T i " "'*'2* ^ 80 0 Independenc e Avenue , S.W . roo m924 A i u , . A ' ^ Washingto n D C 2059 1 Attn : Hearin g Docke t

Cler k •' ' ' R" : ; Z^io 

# From : ' ^nARiN G DOCKE T Kyl e Ponsfor d H C 6 0 Bo x 339 4 Haines : Alask a9982 7 Docke t No . CP09AL000 7 Appea l t o th e FA A Decisionmake r Regardin g Judge'^ s Decision .

Marc h 8,201 0 I hav e bee n diligentl y workin g o n thi s repl y t o ih c judg e sinc e receivin g hi s AMENDE D PROCEDURA L ORDE Rdate dFebruar y 24,2010 , andhi s previou s lette r NOTIC E O F HEARIN G DATE S date dJanuar y 13 , 2010 , Thes e letter s appea

r t o sho w tha t

thi s cas e i s stil l goin g forwar di n it s collectio n o f documentation , t o prepar e fo r ajudgment . Thi s ha s m e completel y confuse da s hi s lette r ORDE RDEEMIN G ALLEGATION S ADMITTE D AN D LIMITIN G PROCEEDIN G T O ISSU E O F CIVIJ . PENALT Y date d Novembe r

9 , 200 9 appear s t o declar e h e ha s alread y mad e hi s determination . Ye t I receive dalate r

lette r declarin g anothe r

hearing . I t

took week s o f readin g an dre-readin g thes e letter s t o understan dtha t th e secon dhearin g i s t o determin e th e amoun t tha t T wil l b e fined . Thi s proces s might b e completel y xmdersiandabl e t o thos e i n th e administratio n bu t i t ha s mad e n o sens e t o me , acommo n American . Unti l jus t recently , I di dno t

understan dVi'ba

i wa s goin g o n i n thi s apparen t dichotomy , an dtherefore ha dn o ide aho w t o reply . My confusio n began bac k whe n m y fund s wer e take n iio mm y PF D (lette r

attached ) o n o r before Septembe r

30 , 2009 , befor

e th e firs t hearin g eve n too k

place . Yo u ca

n se e ho w thi s i s confusin g t o hav e m y mone y taken , the n hav e th e hearin g t o determin e guilt , the n hav e th e hearin g t o detennin e th e amoun t to b e charged . Eve n afte

r ver y diligentl y searchin g th e rule s o f

practice , I canno t

understan dho w thi s orde r o f proces s wa s lawfiil . Thoug h answerin g al l th e letter s wa s di f licul t befor e du e t o othe r

pressin g persona l issues , I foun dtha

t afte r m y fund s wer e take n before an y hearing , depressio n wa.< ! nearl y debilitating , an dI locke dup , unabl e to mak e m y repl y in atimel y mano r bein g completel y conftise dan dfrustrate dwit h th e process . Nearl y al l m

y previou s letter s were routinel y ignored ; letter s o f defense , letter s requestin g clarification , an dletter s requestin g chang e o f venue . It ha s bee n a s if

I neve r eve n wrot e letter s at all , thi s to o create dasever e discouragemen t an ddepression . Another poin t o f confusio n was th e 'proposals ' fro mth e attorne y regardin g th e process , th e amoun t

o f th e fine , an dm

y nee dt o agre e t o a

n informa l meeting . Non e o f

thi s sound s like an y kin do f lawfu l process . An dn o explanatio n was provided . 1 requeste dt o b e04/08/201 0 14:5 2 FA X 202493514 2 FA A* DM S 1002/00 8

informe dregardin g th e attorney' s constan t pus h for a n informa l meeting , bu t

tha t to o wa s ignored . • Th e attorne y continue s to sen dcorrespondenc e a s thoug h th e 'trial ' i s stil l pending . 1 onl y recentl y figuredou t tha t even thoug h thi s cas e went to th e judge , I a magai n suppose dt o wor

k wit h th e attorne y t o "negotiate " th e amoun t o f th e tine ? 1 hav e not

previousl y bee n familia

r wit h thi s practice . • Mone y i s mysteriousl y take n fromm e wit h n o judgment . • An d1 a

mno w receivin g letter s fro mbot h th e judg e an dth e attorney . Jus t wh o a mI suppose dt o b e dealin g wit h a t thi s point ? T hav e spent

thes e many months , dail y workin g diligentl y at answerin g th e man y letter s sen t b y th e judg e an

dyour attorney . Sinc e th e firs t

lette r o f September

o f 200 8 thi s cas e ha s consume dm

y wakin g andsleepin g life . I wa s abl e t o kee p up wit h th e letter s whe n the y cam e on e a

t atime , bu t

onc e th e cour

t began sendin g letter s besid e thos e o f th e attorney , ther e bega

n afloodo f

confusio n i n wha

t wa s require do f

me , a s wel l a s th e state o f th e process . I was both overwhelmed , an dphysicall y unabl e t o repl y t o al l th e man y letter s i n th e tim e frame the y demanded . I cam e t o th e plac e where 1 coul dn o longer kee p my frustratio n ou t

o f m y letter s n o matte r

ho w man y time s T writ e an dre-writ e them , whic h no w take s mor e tim e t o properl y writ e asingl e letter , tha n th e tim e allowed . It ha s bee n several weeks , an dthroug h constan t trie s an dre-tries , I hav e finally calme ddow n enoug h t o se e more than 'red' , andI a mattemptin g ye t

another reply . A s lon g a s th e pretenc e o f alawful proces s was i n place , I wa s abl e t o respon dt o th e letter s in a

n unemotional an dlawful argument . Bu t onc e tha t lawftil proces s wa s apparentl y abando n b y th e administration , I hav e come t o acomplet e los s a s t o ho w t o respond . Thi s cas e ha s con e mor e tha n ayea r an dT amcompletel y wor e down . Thi s appear s to violat e th e 6 ' amendmen t regardin g aspeedy trial , bu t no t bein g acriminal ca.se , apparentl y 1 a

mno t afforde dthi s riglit? Th e administratio n ha s show n tha t i t ha s th e polic e power

t o d o whateve r

i t wants , regardles s o f

it s violatio n o f

it s ow n rule s andth e Law s o f thes e Unite dState s limite db y th e US . Constitution . A s som e examples : First : Th e Administration' s cour t set th e locatio n o f

m y hearin g i n Anchorage , almos t 80 0 mile s fro mm y plac e o f residence . O n 8/2/0 9 T sen t avvritte n letter o f objectio n statin g tha t my financial limitation s mad e it impossibl e fo

r m e t o trave l tha

t fa r t o attend , bu t

my letter o f objectio n wa s ignored . Appai^entl y onl y th e rich are allowe dt o defen d themselves . Ye t afte r thi s hearin g t o determin e guilt , whic h I wa s no t abl e t o attend , th e cour

t foundit in thei r hear t t o set th e nex t hearing , t o determin e th e amoun t o f th e fine, i n Juneau , onl y 11 4 mile s fro

mm y home . Thi s i s furthe

r insul t t o injury . Th e hearin g locatio n wa s i n direc t violatio n o f

1 4 C.F.R . 13.221(b ) regardin g a reasonabl e location . Further th e notic e fo

r th e hearin g di dno t

specif y adate andtim e a s required , bu t

onl y 'o n o r

before ' th e give n date , wit h n o tim e specified .04/08/201 0 14:5 3 FA X 202483514 2 FA A * DM S 0003/00 8

Second : Eve n before judgmen t

wa s mad e i n m

y presen t cas e b y Orde r

serve dNovembe r

9 , 2009 , th e Attorne y General' s OflQc e seize dfund s fromm

y PF D o n o r

before Septembe r

30 , 200 9 wit h n o explanation . Al

l thes e month s later , Marc h 11,2010 , th e amoun t o f m y fine ha s stil l no t

bee n decided , yet

thes e fund s wer e already taken . I wa s onl y informe do f

thi s seizure , b

y th e Permanen t

Fun dDivision , alte r

th e fact . N o lawful documen t

for thi s seizur e wa s provide db y th e court , th e attorney , o r th e Attorne y General' s Office . O n Octobe r 03 , 200 9 I wrot e th e Attorne y General' s Offic e (lette r attached ) i

n searc h o f

th e authorizin g documents , bu t m y deman dt

o sho w lawful documentatio n fo

r th e seizur e ha s bee n ignore dt o thi s day . I mad e mentio n o f thi s seizure t o th e cour

t i n a n attemp t t o explai n m

y confusion , bu t

th e cour t als o ignore dth e topic . Th e Judge^ s ORDE RT O SHOW CAUS E date dOctober 22 , 200 9 was answere do n October 28,200 9 t o sho w I wa s conflise db y hi s letters , an dthe events , Ein d therefore unabl e t o understan dwha

t th e cour t wa s requirin g o r

demanding , bu t

thi s to o wa s ignored , a s all m

y other letters . Third : Accordin g t o th e rule s o f

practic e 1 4 C.F.R . 13.209(a ) o f whic h th e judg e foun dm e i n violation , I di di n fac t

sen dm y timel y repl y date dOctober 28 , 2009 . Tha

t lette r explaine d tha t I ha dalread y answere deac h lin e itemfromth e complaint , whic h clearl y fulfille dth e requirement s o f

thi s rul e o f

practice . M

y lette r al.so fulfille dpart

(e ) o f th e same rule , explainin g tha

t I wa s confuse dandcoul dno t figure ou t

wha t T wa s suppose dt

o d o fiirther. Finally , thi s sam e rule , par t (f ) allow s for

aperso n t

o fai l t o file atimel y answer

i f ther e i s goo dcause . Accordin g t o th e rule , ther e i s no t alimitatio n o n th e productio n o f evidenc e fo

r goo dcause , onl y tha t

goo dcaus e mus t

exist . I a mdeclarin g now , tha t

goo dcaus e di dexit s i

n additio n t o th e above : Attache di s m y recen t lette r i n aseparat e issu e whic h ha s consume dwhatever o f my lif e that thi s issu e ha s no t consumed . There simpl y i s no t enoug h tim e i n m

y lif e t o maintai n th e dvuratio

n an dcomplicatio n o f

thes e issue s whic h I di dno t willingl y o r

knowingl y involv e myself . Thes e explanation s sho w tha t I hav e acte di n goo dfaith , an dv^thi n th e parameter s require dby th e rule s o f

practice . Fourth : I n spite o f 1-1/ 2 year s o f man y letter s bac k

an dfort h betwee n th e accusin g attorne y an d mysel f th e defendant . In spite o f

m y meticuloii s lin e b y lin e repl y t o eac h point o f complaint , an dth e strang e requiremen t t o repeat my lin e b y lin e argument s t o mor e than 5 0 lin e ite maccusations , consumin g many , man y hour s o f m y life . Th e judg e wa s willin g t o ignore all o f my defens e letter s i n thi s case , t o determin e tha t I ha dconfesse dto al l point s o f th e complaint . I t appear s m

y 1-1/ 2 year s o f letter s in repl y t o th e attorne y wer e jus t practice , an dno t

t o b e entere dint o th e recor da s m y defense , eve n thoug h 1 specificall y wrot e th e court , tha t the y mus t be . I fulfille dth e rul e o f

th e administratio n t o respon dt o al l lin e ite m arguments . Th e repea l o f

th e lin e itemaccusation s thre e time s doe s no t chang e m y answers .04/08/201 0 14:5 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A '^^' ^ * DM S 21004/00 8

Du e t o th e abov e arguments , T reques t th e us e o f

1 4 CFR13.23 4 Petitio n t o reconside r o r modif y afinal decisio n an dorde r o f th e FAA decisionmake r

o n appeal , o r

som e odier obscur e rul e that

might more accuratel y apply t

o m y desir e to r

a n appeal . Thi s yea r J mad e $6539-6 4 (W- 2 attached) . Fo r th e first tim e in m y lif e I a munabl e t

o findwork . I move dou t

o f m y hou5 e an damlivin g i

n m y garage , becaus e I coul dno t affor dth e utilities . I sol dm

y retiremen t

fund s a t ahug e loss , an da

msellin g m

y personal possession s in a

n effor t t o keep my hom e mortgag e payment s i n thi s economi c downturn , I a mdiligentl y tryin g t o sta

y of f foo dstamp s becaus e I believ e ama n shoul dstan do n hi s ow n fee t a s fa r a s possible , bu t

I a mfinding that

eve r harde r to do. I understan dthi s i s "no t you r problem " bu t

th e rule s o f

you r administratio n allo w th e judg e t o tak e thi s int o accoun t in determinin g th e amoun t o f th e fine, bu t

neithe r th e attorne y no r

th e judg e made m e aware o f

thi s rule . 1 4 C.F.R . 13.1 6 (ii) . Sinc e th e cour t ha s ignore dall m

y defens e t o date , a

mI t o be g th e cour

t fo r merc y in determinin g m

y fine? I a mshame dt o b e force dto expos e m

y financial difficultie s bu t lookin g for

eve n aglin t

o f relief , I ente r m y financial situatio n informatio n itito th e record . I liv e 3 4 mile s fro

mth e neares t

po.s t office . T n m y financial straights , I normall y driv e t o tow n abou t onc e amonth for

supplies . I driv e a n ol d'/ i to n pickup , whic h get s 8 mile s t o th e gallon . Ga s in Haine s ha s been aroun d$3.7 0 per gallo n fo r some time . I hav e bee r

force dt o driv e t o tow n for

th e sol e purpos e o f

mailin g thes e letter s i n my defense . Roun dtri p I pa

y abou t $31.4 5 in ga s t o mai l m

y letter s certifie do r

deliver y confirmation , i pa y betwee n $ 6 an d$1 1 t o mai l the mplu s copies . Fo r al l th e letter s I hav e bee n require dt o sen di n m y defense , I hav e pai dabou t $600.0 0 s o far . Wit h $165.0 0 alread

y "seized " fromm

y PFD , plu s $12.0 0 administrativ e fee , thi s cas e ha s already cos t

m e $777.0 0 i

n o n effor t t o defen dmyself

. S o fa r AL L m y defens e ha s been completel y ignore dby th e court , an dth e cour t deeme dI hadconfesse dguil t t o all? ! Accordin g t o th e judge' s apparen t polic e power , andbi s willingnes s t o ignor e th e defendant s pleas , onl y afoo l shoul ddar e ente r adefense . Wher

e the n i s my constitutiona l right o f redres s beyon dth e illusion ? Andi f th e cos t o f defens e i s greate r

tha n th e fine, where i s .Tustice ? Thi s come s ver y clos e t o violatin g th e 1' * amendmen t guaranteein g me th e righ t o f redress , an

dno t j us t th e illusio n o f

redress . Thi s als o seem s t o b e abou t t o violate the 5*

^ amendment

regardin g excessiv e lines . Finally : Th e willingnes s o f

thi s administratio n t o first, declare I "conlesse dguil t to al l points" , the n knowin g m

y financial poverty , "olfcr " m e t o plac e mysel f i n emplo y o f

sai d administratio n a s a

n indenture dservant , t o "pay par t o f my debt" , i s beyon dimaginabl e b y an y governmen t

organizatio n o f

th e Unite dState o f

America . Thi s i s somethin g I woul dexpec t

t o rea dabou t

i n 18 * centur

y England , an dcome s very , ver y clos e t o violatin g th e 13 * amendment . I hav e spen t

ayea r andhal f an dmor e tha

n $700.0 0 fighting fo

r m y life , al l becaus e I mistakenl y submitte dm

y baggag e wit

h some coffe e make r

fuel i n my luggage .04/08/201 0 14:5 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A + DM S 0005/00 8

It i s m y conclusio n that

thi s administratio n i s a

t bes t agovernmen t

sponsore dmafia , no t actuall y intendin g t o kee p Americ asaf e fromterrorism , but

a s arevenu e collectio n giing o f thug s terrorizin g honest , well meaning , vYmerican s wh o accidentall y cros s it' s shadow . I a maware tha t

Congres s ha s give n th e administratio n thi s power , but tha t doe s no t lawfully authoriz e it

t o violate th e restraint s o f tli e U.S . Constitution . Thi s administratio n ha s full y deprive dm e o f

m y piusui t o f happines s b y th e lengt

h o f thi s case , an dit s consumptio n o f m y life . It i s abou t t o depriv e m

e o f libert y b y claimin g I hav e confesse dto th e charges , an dno w attemptin g t o make me a n indenture dservan t withou t afar e trial . I onl y today foun di n th e FA A rule s th e optio n t o appeal to adecisionmaker , whic h I a m domg now . I a

mseekin g areversal o f

th e judge' s decision , an drestitutio n o f th e cost s for defense , du e t o th e breache s li.sted . Unles s yo u ca n sho w that

I a min error , I hav e lai dou t

here many seriou s violation s o f both th e administration s ovir n rules , a s wel l a s my protection s an drights secure dby th e Constitutio n o f

thes e Unite dState s an dit s Bil l o f Rights . Sincerely , Kyi . H C 60'eo x 339 4 Haine s A K

9982 7

c.c . FAA ITi c Honorabl e RichardC . Goodwi n Administrativ e La

w Judg e Hearin g Docket , FAA , 60 0 Independenc e Ave . S.W . Wilbu r Wrigh t Buildin g - Roo m201 4 Washington , D C 2059 1 ATTN : Hearin g Docke t

Clerk , AGC-43 0 c. c FA A Senio r Attorne y Glen n IL Brow n Offic e o f th e Regional Counse l 22 2 Wes t 7"'Ave . #1 4 Anchorag e A K

99513-758 704/08/201 0 14:5 3 FA X 202493514 2 FA A * DM S

1195- 1 Alask aDepartmen t

o f Revenu e ^ ^ Permanen t

Fun dDividen dDivisio n P O Bo x 11046 2 Juneau , A K

99811-046 2 

# ^14^1' ^ ih,|,||i).||,.„ii.ii|j.i||i}|.„...ii,i|t..||i..H.|i.t.,,|.i i WILLIA M KYL E PONSFOR D H C 6 0 BO X 339 4 HAINE S A K99827-960 4 21006/00 8 D12Q 3

ALN : 200*1015071 3 "X*' ^ » - "^

j * ^ V l^«Tr . * Octobe r 8 , 200 9

Dividen dIMitribatio n For m l«99Mix c

Par t or al l o f you r 200 9 Permaaen t

Fun dDividen dwa s assigne do r donate db y you , seize dunde r awri t o f execution , o r withhel db y th e agenc y o r agencie s below . A n asteris k (* ) besid e agarnishmen t indicate s tha t

you r dividen dwa s seize dunde r awri t o f execution . If

you r dividen d wa s seize dunde r

awri t o f executio n b y mistake , yo u hav e 3 0 day s fromth e dat e o f thi s notic e t o file awritte n objectio n wit h th e court

o r th e governmen t

agenc y hsted . You r

objectio n mus t

includ e th e cas e numbe r

an dthearaouBl/Seized . Th e PF D Divisio n canno t

assis t in th e is.sue . " ^ Ageicy/Addres B PF D ADMINISTRATIV E FE E P O BO X 11046 1 JUNEA U A K

9981 1 Phone : (907 ) 269-037 0 Amount : $ 12.0 0 DEPARTMEN T O F LAW ATTORNE Y GENERAL' S OF C ANCHORAG E A K

9950 1 590 3 Phone : (907 ) 269-520 5 Cas e # : 4FA-08-07465MO D 103 1 W.4TH , SUIT E 20 0

Amount : $25.0 0 DEPARTMEN T O F LAW ATTORNE Y GENERAL' S OF C ANaiORAG E A K

9950 1 590 3 Phone : (907 ) 269-520 5 Cas e # : 4FA-08-07466MO D 103 1 W.4TH , SUIT E 20 0

Amount : $25.0 0 DEPARTMEN T O F LAW ATTORNE Y GENERAL' S OF C ANCHORAG E A K

9950 1 590 3 Phone : (907 ) 269-520 5 Cas e # : 4FA-08-07465MO D 103 1 W.4TH , SUIT E 20 0

Amount : $15.0 0 DEPARTMEN T O F LAW ATTORNE Y GENERAL' S OF C ANCHORAG E A K

9950 1 590 3 Phone : (907 ) 269-520 5 Cas e # : 4FA-08-07466MO D 103 1 W.4TH , SUIT E 20 0

Amount ; $75.0 0 012Q 3 thviden dInfoTmadnn ; Fmji ) - ctor.pf<:1.info<aialask.iL|iO v Anchowe c (907 1 209-037 0 / Fairbunk s (907 ) 431-2S2 0 / Junea u (907 ) 465-232 6 ( CoBtinBM l O B back... )04/08/201 0 14:5 4 FA X 202493514 2 FA A • > DM S 21007/00 8 200 9 PF D Eligibilit y WilliamKyl e Ponsfor d Pag e 2 of 2 ALN : 50aiD1507i e

6 ' DEPARTMEN T O F LAW ATTORNE Y GENERAL' S OF C 103 1 W . 4TH ; SUIT E 20 0 ANCHORAG E A K

9950 1 590 3 Phone : (907 ) 269-520 5 Cas e # : 4FA-08-07466MO D Amount : $25.0 0 7 * DEPARTMEN T O F LAW ATTORNE Y GENERAL' S OF C 103 1 W . 4111 , SUIT E 20 0 ANQIORAG E A K

9950 1 590 3 Phone; (907 ) 269-520 5 Cafi e # : 4FA-08-074G5MO D Amount : $10.0 0 8 APPLICAN T PORTIO N P O BO X 11046 3 JUNEA U A K

99811046 3 Cas e # : AppPortio n Amount : $1118.0 0 Tota l Distributio n for : WILLL\ M KYL E PONSFOR D SSN : ^^m ^ Amount : $1305.0 0 Importaa t

Federa l Ta x iBfomatio a Kee p thi s lette r

fo r you r tax records . Thi s importan t ta x informatio D i s bein g furnishe dt o th e Interna l Revenu e Service . I f yo u fail t o report

th e PF D o n you r

Federa l incom e tax return , anegligenc e penalty o r othe r sanctio n ma y b e imposed . Repor t th e amount

o f you r PF D o n th e IR S fom i 104 0 o n di e hn e for OTHE RINCOME . I f

yo u ar e otherwis e eHgibl e to file th e simple r

foim s 1040 A o r

1040EZ , yo u ma y report

thi s amoun t

o n di e lin e for

UNEMPLOYMEN T COMPENSATIO N (se e instruction s for thos e forms) . Feden dBaciis p WltUMridin g Federal Law require s th e Departmen t o f Revenu e t o withhol d28 % o f you r PF D i f yo u di dno t

provid e avali dSocia l Securit y Numbe r an di f th e amoun t

o f th e PF D i s $60 0 o r

more . I f taxe s wer e withhel dfromyou r PFD , report

th e withhel damoun t

o n IR S for

m104 0 on di e lin e for

FEDERA L TA X WITHHELD . Th e IR S wil l issu e an y refiin ddue . ipartmen t o f Revenu e Fun d Dividen d Divisio n D . Bo x 11046 2 Alask a 99811-046 2 J G SERVIC E REQUESTE D 

# 'J M 

# i f v 

# ^r'D ^ ]o r 

# i s

H.L L 

# M 

# m :;

J (".- I .- . i\v<. . . 1 -i n II . • . I. i |^f-/ l s U.S.POSTAG E $0036 7 yEPSozoo s ZI P 9080 1 O. J U 2 7 •: ! T .' . i i Importan t Ta x Informatio n Enclose d04/08/201 0 14:5 4 FA X 202433514 2 FA A • » DM S 01008/00 8

To : Departmen t

o f La w Attorne y General' s Oflic e 103 1 W . 4 * Suit e 20 0 Anchorag e A K

9950 1 -590 3 

# 5cJ roc ^ ^'^ ' Octobe r 2 , 200 9 Dea r Attorne y general , 1 receive dnotic e ALN : 2009015071 2 o n Oct . 1,0 9 fro mth e Alask aPF D departmen t informin g m c tha t

th e DEPARTMEN T O F LA W ATTORNE Y GENERAL' S OF C wit h th e addres s show n a s 103 1 W . 4* , Suit e 20 0 Anchorag e A K 99501-590 3 ha s .seizedunde r wri t o f execution , $165.0 0 fix)mm y Dividen dthroug h 6 garnishment s with cas e number s tha t d o not see mt o exist . I hav e n o knowledg e o f

an y suc h cases , no r

hav e I receive dan y informatio n o r documentatio n regardin g an y o f thes e s o calle dcases , o r

thei r judgments . Further , ther e ar e n o finalize dcase s regardin g m e with you r departmen t

whic h woul d sugges t suc h charge s ar e lega l o r appropriate . T o date , n o judgmen t

relate dt o th e Attorne y General' s Offic e ha s bee n foun dagains t me . Therefor e th e seizur e o f

m y fiinds b y you r

offic e i s unwarrante dan dunlawful . 1 woul dlik e t o offe

r yo u th e opportunity to explai n th e action s o f you r offic e i n thi s issue . An dhopefull y correc t

thi s error . Pleas e retur n th e fund s t o m e immediately .

Kyli e Ponsfor d H C 6 0 Bo x 339 4 Haine s A K 9982 7