Clerk of the Justice Court
Courthouse Room 103
Dumas, TX 79029
 

This document contains the legal answer to the Court requested in cause no. C-3349 (Sunray Independent School
District vs. Robert J. Nelson)

 To all concerned,

Your citation contains a minor error.  The citation names a single Defendant, Robert J. Nelson.  There are actually
two Defendants, Robert J. Nelson Sr. (deceased 1989) and Robert J. Nelson Jr.  Robert J. Nelson, Jr. is the legal
executor of the estate of Robert J. Nelson, Sr.  Since one of the Defendants is deceased, 'Defendant' will continue to
be used, but will refer only to Robert J. Nelson, Jr. as both himself and as the executor of the estate.

As named in the suit, the Defendant (Robert J. Nelson) agrees that there are taxes owed to the Plaintiffs.  However,
the Defendant maintains that was never notified of the existence of these taxes, or the amount of these taxes, until
September of 1999.

In the Plaintiff's (Sunray Independent School District and others) original petition, the Plaintiff claims "Plaintiff(s)
would show that all conditions precedant to the right to levy said taxes were performed as required by law; that all of
said taxes were authorized by law; and that all things required by law have been duly and legally performed by the
proper officials."

The Defendant would produce multiple witnesses that can verify that all conditions precedant to the right to levy said
taxes were not performed as required by law, and that all things required by law have not been duly and legally
performed by the proper officials.  For example, Ray J. Nelson, the Defendant's brother, received the Defendant's
mail for two and one half years, and never received any tax due or overdue notices.  The owners and caretakers of
an apartment who received the Defendant's mail for one and three quarter years never received any tax due or
overdue notices.  The Defendant has maintained a current change of address continuously throughout his lifetime,
and specifically since 1989 at the U.S. Post Office.  The Defendant has maintained a current change of address for
the estate of Robert J. Nelson, Sr. since 1989 at the U.S. Post Office.  As a result, royalty checks from the Mobil
mineral interest were received in 1989, 1990, 1991, and 1992; also, royalty checks from the Philips and GPM mineral
interest were received from 1989 to 1999.  Therefore it is obvious and verifiable that the change of address was
valid, and also that the current address was also available from Philips or Mobil.

As executor of the estate, the Defendant found no correspondence or bills from any of the Plaintiffs contained in the
records of the deceased.  The Defendant has never received a bill for taxes due from any of the Plaintiffs.  The
Plaintiffs have the legal responsibility to identify taxpayers who have a tax liability, and to notify these taxpayers
annually of the amount of the taxes owed and who they are owed to.  However, none of the Plaintiffs has ever sent
any bills for taxes due, taxes overdue, or any other correspondence since at least 1989, the year Robert J. Nelson
was deceased, with the exception of their letter of September, 1999, and the summons this answer is serving.
Therefore, the Defendant was unaware of the existence and amount of any tax liability.  The Defendant noted that tax
was being withdrawn from every royalty check he received, and concluded that any tax liabilities were obviously
being met, since no tax due notices were received from any entity.

Consider the case of a person with a tax liability to the Plaintiffs who dies in a fire.  The person dies, and all of their
personal records are lost.  The heirs become aware that a royalty interest exists, because later royalty checks are
received.  That case is similar to the Defendant's.  If the Plaintiffs do not meet their responsibility to send an annual
bill for taxes due as required by law, then the heir never knows of the existence of the taxes, and therefore cannot be
fined or penalized for failing to pay them.

This appears as though it might be a case of attempted fraud, and the Defendant is considering filing criminal
charges and will be contacting or has already contacted the FBI for a Federal criminal investigation of fraud,
attempted fraud, embezzlement, and attempted embezzlement by the Plaintiffs.

Charges may also be filed in Minnesota and / or Iowa State Court for fraud and attempted fraud.  Therefore, this
answer is not to be taken as a request for action from the Court or from the State of Texas regarding fraud or
attempted fraud, since this will be undertaken by Minnesota and/or Iowa or in U.S. Federal Court if undertaken at all,
and since this is the legal jurisdiction of the FBI.  The Defendant does request that the State of Texas re-examine the
Plaintiff's fitness to hold their current government employment.

The Plaintiffs already have access to computer records that contain the Social Security numbers of all the royalty
owners, because these Social Security numbers are all present in the Mobil and Philips computer files for Federal tax
withdrawal purposes, and the Plaintiffs have legal access to those files (as well as files from other Corporations).

It is possible they also have illegal and criminal access to the Social Security computer system, and if they do, it
would be easy to scan their database of royalty owner's Social Security numbers against the Social Security
computer's records to search for recently deceased royalty owners, and then proceed to intentionally stop sending
out annual tax bills, showing up ten years later with a falsified claim of penalties and interest due and a foreclosure
notice.

It is obvious that they had no difficulty 'locating' the Defendant to deliver a notice of proposed foreclosure and a
summons.  This is only a theory, but it fits the facts well, and it is hard to believe the Plaintiff's agents would attempt
this out of some great patriotism to the taxing district, considering that it is easier simply to raise the taxes.
Therefore, I further suspect that because most people would decide it wouldn't be worth the effort to spend $5000 in
legal fees to recover $3000, they successfully foreclose on most citations.  I further suspect that the foreclosed
properties are never or rarely received by the taxing district, but rather go into the embezzlers' bank accounts.

The Plaintiffs claim they have met their legal responsibility.  Therefore the Defendant suspects that the Plaintiffs will
claim to have been sending the tax due notices as required by law, which would be an accusation of fraud against
the Defendant.  The Defendant would produce hundreds of money order receipts, hundreds of electronic internet
mail records, and hundreds of customer letters from his part time activity buying and selling computer parts over the
internet.  If the Defendant were inclined toward crime, it is obvious that surely at least once he would have attempted
to use an excuse of never having received funds that were sent to him through the mail as an excuse to steal funds
sent to him by customers expecting computer parts in return.  Yet the Defendant can prove that no complaint was
ever filed with his internet service provider or the U.S. Post Office, and his user comment record on the main internet
auction site is both sizable and spotless, with 28 positive comments from buyers, and no negative comments.  This
page can accessed at ebay.com on the user feedback subpage under the username of nelsonr1@means.net.

In some of the e-mail records, more than once a buyer has sent the defendant U.S. currency through the mail, and it
can be proven that the Defendant advises these buyers against the non-wisdom of sending cash through the U.S.
Mail, and advises them to send a check or money order the next time they make a purchase over the internet rather
than currency.  If the Defendant were inclined towards fraud, irresponsibility, or crime, surely he would have claimed
never to have received these funds, and the buyer would have never been sent the item or items they purchased
from the Defendant, given the impossibility of proving that the Defendant had ever received the non-Certified / non-
Registered mail.  Instead it can be proven that all of these items were indeed sent to the buyers.  In fact, out of a total
of five international sales over a three year period, one of the buyers who sent currency was located in a foreign
country (Japan), having virtually no recourse against that type of criminal activity.  Given this provable character,
integrity, and honesty, it is difficult to believe that the Defendant would perjure himself over other items which were
supposedly 'lost in the mail'.

The Defendant can further prove that these e-mail records cannot have been tampered with.  These records are
contained on three different formats of computer tape backup, using data compression.  Since CRC-32 error
correction is used, and since some of the files created during the tape backup are committed to the tape, it is almost
impossible to alter the tape's contents.  Although e-mail records can easily be edited, data on a tape cannot be, since
each preceding data block contains the compression dictionary modifications for the next block, and there is only a
one in 18 billion chance an alteration could be made that would not alter the CRC-32 data.  One could possibly
restore the files to a computer and alter all of the file dates, and the dates inside later versions of Windows DLL files
and other files, but this would be a very time consuming process, taking many days to accomplish with any hope of
being sure of changing every date reference.  However, the Defendant can verify his records against the email
records of his corespondents and others to prove that this did not occur.

In addition, the Defendant himself experienced problems with criminals on the internet, complained to the FBI, and
gave the FBI a copy of these same e-mail records.  This can be verified through the FBI office in LaCrosse,
Wisconsin, Iowa Senator Chuck Grassley's Waterloo, Iowa office, the Sheriff of Fillmore county, Minnesota, and
many others.  The Defendant would ask that you request a copy of these records from the FBI, and gives his
permission as evidenced by his signature affixed to this answer.  It is difficult to believe that the defendant could
somehow have successfully committed the crime of breaking and entering into a secure U.S. FBI office, and altered
or replaced these records.

The Defendant can also produce witnesses of impeccable character as character witnesses.  The Defendant can
prove that he has a spotless criminal record, excepting a misdemeanor trespassing violation in 1980.  Regarding the
Defendant's brother as a potential witness, Ray J. Nelson is an ex- U.S. Marine Officer with an impeccable record.

The telling factors here are that (1) the Plaintiffs had no difficulty 'locating' the Defendant to deliver a notice of
proposed foreclosure and a summons.  In order to legally foreclose, proof must be maintained by the Plaintiffs of the
Certified Mail delivery of this notice.  The Defendant puts forth that the Plaintiffs were always aware of the
Defendant's address, and simply never mailed the annual tax due notices.  Also, (2) Mobil, GPM, Philips, and any
other named parties who supervise or administer mineral interest royalty payments are required by law to annually
provide the Plaintiffs with a complete listing of all royalty owners names and addresses.  Therefore, the Plaintiffs had
the Defendant's address.

The Defendant asks that the Court postpone further action on this citation (except those described below) until the
FBI investigation has been completed.

Had the Plaintiffs met their legal responsibilities to notify annually of the amount of the taxes due and the identities
and addresses the taxes were to be sent to, the Defendant would have been aware of the existence and amounts of
the taxes; therefore, the Defendant is not liable for penalties and interest, Court costs, legal costs, or any other
miscellaneous costs associated with this Court action.

The Defendant has not received royalty interest payments from Mobil from the interest described in the Plaintiff's
original petition since 1992, when the funds were put into escrow by either Mobil or by the State of Texas because of
Mobil's inability to positively identify the Defendant as the executor of the estate.  The State of Texas currently holds
this escrow account, which easily contains more than enough funds to pay the taxes.

As the legal executor of the estate of Robert J. Nelson, Sr., the Defendant authorizes the Court and gives his
permission as evidenced by his signature affixed to this answer, and asks that the Court legally authorize and allow
the State of Texas and / or Mobil and / or other parties that have jurisdiction to remove from this Mobil escrow
account and deliver to the Plaintiff funds equal to the total amount of the original taxes listed in the Plaintiff's claim,
which the Defendant agrees are legally owed to the Plaintiffs.  However, this the only amount the Defendant
authorizes.  No permission is given to remove, and no funds shall be removed from the escrow account to pay for
Court costs, legal fees or costs, or any other claimed liabilities, and no funds shall be removed from the escrow
account to pay for the penalties and interest claimed by the Plaintiffs in their original petition.  The Defendant
disputes the validity and intent of these claims, and any liability for Court or legal costs, and will take the appropriate
actions described above and below.  The Defendant maintains that these are not his liabilities, but are the Plaintiff's.

Since the Mobil funds were put into escrow by the Court in 1992 due to Mobil's inability to positively identify the
Defendant, and since the Defendant has now been recognized and identified by this Court as the legal executor of
the estate and is one of the two legal heirs (Robert and Ray Nelson), the Defendant asks that the Court close the
Mobil (and any other) escrow account and forward the remaining funds to the Defendant, and instruct Mobil to
resume payments.

There appear to be royalty interest entities and Plaintiff entities listed in the Plaintiff's original petition that the
Defendant does not recognize, and has never received any correspondence from.  Therefore, the Defendant asks
that the Court order the Plaintiff to provide the Defendant with the complete names and addresses of all of the
entities and all Plaintiffs which are listed in the Plaintiff's original citation.

The Court will find attached to this answer a copy of a letter written by the Defendant and sent to the Plaintiff via U.S.
Certified Mail on September 27th, 1999 responding to the letter of intention to foreclose sent by the Plaintiff earlier
that month.  The Defendant retains the proof of mailing and the receipt for the U.S. Postal Service Money Order (a
copy is enclosed) that he did enclose with that letter to pay for the 1985 tax assessments.  The Defendant did not
receive any response whatsoever from the Plaintiff until the summons of the citation this document is answering was
delivered on May 2nd, 2000, and that response was the summons itself.

Therefore, it is obvious that the Defendant informed the Plaintiff of his ignorance of the existence of these taxes, and
informed the Plaintiff that he should have been notified by the Plaintiff.  The money order and the statements "These
funds are held either by Mobil or the State of Texas, and considerably exceed the owed taxes.  Is it possible for your
office, with my signed permission, to be compensated directly from this escrow account?" clearly demonstrates the
intent of the Defendant to pay the taxes once he became aware of their existence, making every reasonable effort to
meet his legal obligations and responsibilities..

However, the Plaintiff took no action of any kind but to instigate a frivolous and unnecessary Court action.  Therefore,
it is clear that the Plaintiff is making a fraudulent attempt to foreclose the described properties, attempting to receive
the much greater value of these properties rather than the comparatively small amount of the actual taxes that are
due.  This is also easily apparent when the Court considers that they or their legal counsel would had to have
discovered that the amount of the funds in the Mobil escrow account were easily more than enough to pay for the
entire amount cited in their petition.

Therefore, the Defendant asks that the Court invalidate and dismiss all of the Plaintiff's citation and petition as being
illegal, frivolous and / or fraudulent, and to invalidate and dismiss all of the liability claims (penalties, interest, Court
costs, legal fees, and any other fee or cost) of the Plaintiff contained therein except for those amounts of the actual
original taxes which were and are legally due.  The Defendant asks the Court that any and all liens granted by the
Court to the Plaintiff be revoked, and the funds be immediately returned to the Defendant.
 
The Defendant asks the Court to cause all existing liens and escrow funds be released to the Defendant, unless and
except the Court uses the permission given above by the Defendant to cause the original taxes to be paid directly
from these funds, in which case the Defendant asks that the remainder of all existing liens and escrow funds be
released to the Defendant after the original taxes have been paid out of these funds.

The Defendant asks the Court to find the Plaintiffs in violation of their legal responsibilities, and require as corrective
action that within a short but reasonable period of time they begin drawing all taxes (the Defendant's, as well as all
other taxpayers) directly from the mineral rights administrators (Mobil, Philips, GPM, and any others mentioned or not
mentioned in the Plaintiff's original petition but existing) automatically using computers as other taxing entities do.

Copies of the Plaintiff's original petition, the Court's citation, and this answer and its enclosures have been filed with
the FBI, Fillmore County, Minnesota, and elsewhere.
 
 
 
 
 

(Modified to HTML format 6/10/2001)
 
 

Attested to and signed this _5th_  day of May, 2000

Robert J. Nelson
 
 
 
 

(This is a preliminary draft of the answer that will be filed with the court.  This early draft is for the purpose
of filing a request for an investigation with the FBI, and is for FBI records)