• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

<> 1 <

> <>, <> <> 2 <> Email: <> 3 In propria persona 4 5 DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES 6 [ ] DISTRICT OF [NAME OF STATE] 7 ) Case No.: 8 [Name] ) ) NOTICE OF LACK OF 9 Plaintiff ) JURISDICTION AND DEMAND FOR ) HEARING TO ORDER PROOF OF 10 v. ) JURISDICTION ) 11 DEFENDANT/Citizen ) ) 12 ) ) 13

14 TO ALL INTERESTED PARTIES: 15 PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that a hearing has been requested by the 16 Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] to take place on the 17 ______day of ______, 1994, at ______18 hours in Courtroom ______, of the above entitled Court located 19 at ______. 20 21 1. This hearing has been called to resolve certain 22 conclusions of law which are in controversy. The demand for 23 this hearing constitutes a direct challenge to the jurisdiction 24 of this Court in the instant matter at bar. The accused Citizen 25 [DEFENDANT] is aware that he has been compelled to participate 26 in this action under threat of arrest and incarceration, should 27 he fail to appear when ordered to do so. 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 1 of 65 1 2. The subject matter jurisdiction of this Court is not 2 in question here. Rather, because the matter is criminal in 3 nature and involves a compelled performance to what is 4 essentially derived from Roman Civil (Administrative) Law, the 5 Accused herewith challenges the In Personam jurisdiction of this 6 Court. The Accused does so on the ground that the Plaintiff has 7 failed to provide an offer of proof that the Accused is subject 8 to the legislative equity jurisdiction in which this Court 9 intends to sit to hear and determine only the facts of this 10 matter, and not the law, arising from a "Bill of Pains and 11 Penalties". 12 3. It is well known that jurisdiction may be challenged 13 at any time as an issue of law because, absent jurisdiction, all 14 acts undertaken under the color of statute or under the color of 15 ordinance are null and void ab initio (from their inception). 16

17 4. Because the Accused was compelled, under threat of 18 further damage and injury, to enter this Court to demand relief, 19 this appearance is SPECIAL, and not general in nature. 20 5. The argument which follows sets forth the nature of 21 the controversy "At Law". This Court is bound by its oath of 22 office to sit on the Law side of its jurisdiction to hear the 23 controversy in a neutral capacity and to make a fair and 24 impartial determination. 25

26 6. This document, and the argument contained herein, is 27 intended to be the basis for further action on appeal, should 28 this Court fail to afford a complete hearing on the law of the

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 2 of 65 1 matter at the noticed request of the Accused. Furthermore, a 2 failure of this Court to seat on the Law side of its 3 jurisdiction to determine this timely question will give the 4 Accused cause to file for a Writ of Prohibition in a higher 5 Court. 6 ARGUMENT 7

8 1. The Constitution of the United States of America 9 (1787) is the supreme Law of the Land. The Constitution of 10 State of California must be construed in harmony with the 11 supreme Law of the Land; otherwise, the State of California has 12 violated its solemn contract with the Union of States known as 13 the United States of America, and the question raised herein 14 becomes one which is a proper original action before the Supreme 15 Court of the United States, sitting in an Article 3 capacity. 16 2. An employee of the Internal Revenue Service has 17 submitted allegations in what amounts to a "Bill of Pains and 18 Penalties" alleging that I, [DEFENDANT], have somehow failed to 19 perform according to the terms of some agreement for specific 20 performance on my part. 21

22 3. By submitting this Bill of Pains and Penalties, the 23 individual in question has accused [DEFENDANT] of failing to 24 perform specifically to some legislative statute which is being 25 presented as evidence of the law. Statutes are not laws; they 26 are administrative regulations which are civil in nature, even 27 when they carry sanctions of a criminal nature, unless there is 28 an injured party who is brought forward as a corpus delicti.

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 3 of 65 1 2 4. Thus, because of this unsupported conclusion of law, 3 and because the Internal Revenue Service has administratively 4 decided that the Accused is subject to the statutes in question, 5 the Accused Citizen holds that a contrary conclusion of law 6 exists to challenge the jurisdiction of this Court. Therefore, 7 this Court must now sit in a neutral position, on the Law side 8 of its jurisdiction, to hear and resolve the question of 9 controversial positions of law as they affect its jurisdiction 10 or lack of jurisdiction In Personam. 11

12 5. This argument is intended to serve as both a defense 13 "At Law" in this Court, and as the basis of future actions, 14 should it become necessary to appeal the question presented to a 15 higher judicial authority. 16 6. If the Accused Citizen is correct, and if this Court 17 is sitting to hear the violation of a regulatory statute, then 18 it is possible that the judges of this Court, in hearing this 19 matter, are acting in an administrative capacity rather than a 20 judicial capacity. This issue is discussed in detail in the 21 argument which follows. 22

23 7. This Court is placed on NOTICE that, if it fails to 24 sit and hear this issue "At Law" upon a timely request, then you 25 may have violated your oath of office to uphold and defend the 26 Constitutions of the United States of America (1787) and the 27 California Republic (1849). Such an act will serve to place you 28 and the other parties to this action outside the realm of

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 4 of 65 1 judicial immunity and subject to future action by this Accused 2 California Citizen. The Prosecutor in this action is 3 specifically placed on NOTICE that s/he carries no shirttail 4 immunity should s/he continue to prosecute, in the absence of a 5 determination "At Law" of the question presented herein before 6 trial. 7 JURISDICTION 8 9 8. In 1849, California became one of the several States 10 in the Union of States known as the United States of America. 11 California is a "Common Law" State, meaning that the Common Law, 12 as derived from the common law of England, is a recognized form 13 of law in the State of California. 14 15 9. Article 3 of the Constitution of the United States of 16 America gives "judicial" power to the various courts, among them 17 the District Courts. What is not generally recognized is that 18 the District Courts may seat in different jurisdictions. Judges 19 may wear different hats, so to speak, depending on the nature of 20 the case brought before them. 21 10. This Court may sit "At Law" to hear crimes and civil 22 complaints involving a damage or injury which is unlawful under 23 the Common Law of a State; or it may seat in equity to 24 determine specific performance to a contract in equity. 25 Alternatively, as a creation of the foreign Corporate State, 26 this Court may seat administratively in a fiction which may be 27 termed "legislative equity", under authority to regulate 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 5 of 65 1 activities not of common right, such as commerce for profit and 2 gain, or other privileged activities. 3 11. The Internal Revenue Code is essentially a "civil, 4 regulatory statute" which was enacted in 1939 to tax and 5 regulate employees of the Federal Government and "citizens of 6 the United States" (i.e., of the District of Columbia), and to 7 set forth rules and regulations for the production of revenue 8 for the "United States", as defined in the U.S. Constitution. 9

10 12. It is an unlawful abuse of procedure to use civil 11 statutes as "evidence of the law" in a criminal matter, 12 particularly when a United States Code has not been enacted into 13 positive law (see, specifically, IRC 7851(a)(6)(A)). 14 13. Both civil and criminal matters "At Law" require that 15 the complaining party be a victim of some recognizable damage. 16 The "Law" cannot recognize a "crime" unless there is a victim 17 who properly claims to have been damaged or injured. 18

19 14. Regulatory statutes, on the other hand, are enacted 20 under the police power of State and Federal Governments to 21 regulate activities not of common right. All statute law is 22 inferior to, and bound by, the restrictions of the Constitution. 23 These "regulatory" statutes operate as "law" on the subjects of 24 those statutes, and violations may carry sanctions of a criminal 25 nature, even in the absence of a victim or injury. 26 15. A self-evident truth which distinguishes "crimes" 27 under the Law, from "offenses of a criminal nature" under 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 6 of 65 1 regulatory statutes, is the difference between Rights afforded 2 to a defendant in a criminal proceeding, and "rights" available 3 to a defendant under "due process" in a statutory proceeding. 4 16. In the case of true crimes "At Law", the Common Law 5 Citizen [DEFENDANT] enjoys all his fundamental rights as 6 guaranteed by the State and Federal Constitutions, including 7 both "substantive" and "procedural" due process. In contrast, 8 when regulatory offenses "of a criminal nature" are involved, 9 the statutory defendant cannot demand constitutional rights, 10 since only certain "civil rights" have been granted in these 11 actions, and only "procedural due process", consisting of the 12 right to be heard on the facts alone, is allowed. 13 Constitutional rights and substantive due process are noticeably 14 absent. Therefore, the Court must be seated in some 15 jurisdiction other than "At Law", in order to hear an alleged 16 violation of a regulatory statute. 17

18 17. The Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT], hereby 19 places all parties and the Court on NOTICE, that he is not a 20 "citizen of the United States" under the so-called 14th 21 Amendment, i.e., a juristic person or a franchised person who 22 can be compelled to perform under the regulatory Internal 23 Revenue Code, which is civil in nature. Moreover, the Accused 24 Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] hereby challenges the In Personam 25 jurisdiction of the Court with this contrary conclusion of law. 26 This Court is now mandated to seat on the Law side of its 27 capacity to hear evidence of the status of the Accused Citizen. 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 7 of 65 1 18. The Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] contends 2 that the Internal Revenue Service made a false conclusion of law 3 in an administrative capacity when it first brought this action 4 before the Court, and in so doing failed to impart jurisdiction 5 upon this Court to seat and hear this matter in a jurisdiction 6 of legislative equity. 7 19. The Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] now demands 8 that the attorney for the Plaintiff in this matter step forward 9 with an offer of proof that the Accused Common Law Citizen 10 [DEFENDANT], has lost his status as a Common Law Citizen of the 11 California Republic, and is now a "resident" of this State who 12 can be compelled to perform to the letter of every civil statute 13 because he is either an immigrant alien, a statutory resident 14 (14th Amendment citizen), a juristic person (corporation), or an 15 enfranchised person (i.e., one who has knowingly, willingly and 16 voluntarily entered into an agreement for the exercise of a 17 privilege or the receipt of a benefit and for the attendant 18 considerations carried with the grant of that privilege or 19 benefit). 20

21 20. Once jurisdiction is challenged, this Court must sit 22 on the Law side of its jurisdiction as a neutral arbitrator, 23 before the allegations of statutory wrongdoing can proceed. 24 Failure to do so may subject the judge of this Court to charges 25 of perjury for violating the oath of office by refusing to 26 uphold and protect the rights guaranteed and protected by the 27 Constitutions of the California Republic and of the United 28 States of America.

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 8 of 65 1 21. The Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] requests 2 that this Court take judicial notice that he has been compelled 3 to enter this Court to answer the allegation, and contends that 4 the allegations are founded upon false conclusions of law. The 5 Memorandum of Law which follows will set forth the position of 6 the Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT], and the record will 7 show that no evidence is before this Court which contradicts the 8 position of Citizen [DEFENDANT], except a mere fiction of law. 9 This fiction of law cannot stand in the face of a clear and 10 direct challenge. 11 12 Dated , 199__ 13 Respectfully submitted 14 with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights 15 and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights, 16 17 18 Citizen of the California Republic In Propria Persona, Sui Juris 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 9 of 65 1 MEMORANDUM OF LAW 2 CLASSES OF CITIZENSHIP 3 4 1. The Constitution for the United States of America 5 recognizes several classes of people who exist in this Union of 6 States, as described in Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3 (1:2:3). 7 8 2. This Court is herewith mandated to take judicial 9 notice of the Constitution for the United States of America, the 10 Constitution of the California Republic, the Statutes at Large 11 of the United States of America, and all case law presented 12 herein, pursuant to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Section 201, 13 et seq., and Article 4, Section 1 (4:1) of the Constitution for 14 the United States of America (1787). 15 3. Excluding "Indians not taxed", since they are not 16 under consideration in this matter, we are left with two other 17 classes of individuals defined in 1:2:3 of the U.S. 18 Constitution, to wit: "free Persons" and "three-fifths of all 19 other Persons". 20 21 4. The term "three fifths of all other Persons" referred 22 to the Black slave population and all others of races other than 23 "white" who could not and did not have Common Law Citizenship of 24 one of the several States of the Union, at the time the 25 Constitution was adopted. (For an in-depth analysis of this 26 fact, see the cases of Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393 27 (1856); U.S. v. Rhodes, 1 Abbott 39; Slaughter House Cases, 16 28 Wall. 74 (1873); Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43 (1872);

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 10 of 65 1 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649 (1898); and K. Tashiro v. 2 Jordan, 201 Cal. 239 (1927); et al.) 3 5. The Thirteenth Amendment, officially and lawfully 4 ratified in 1865, served only to abolish slavery within the 5 corporate United States. No race other than the white race 6 could claim Common Law Citizenship of one of the several States, 7 which Citizenship was afforded the protection of the 8 Constitutions. (This is discussed in depth in Dred Scott v. 9 Sandford supra). 10

11 6. Further proof that this argument applies to the State 12 of California is found in Article 2, Section 1 of the Original 13 California Constitution (1849) which states in part: "Every 14 WHITE male citizen of the United States, and every WHITE male 15 citizen of Mexico ..." [emphasis added]. Obviously, this 16 provision excluded all other races from being Common Law 17 Citizens of California and from having the full protection of 18 the State and Federal Constitutions. This was the case even 19 before the famous Dred Scott decision. It is most notable that 20 the California Constitution was altered after the so-called 14th 21 Amendment so as to delete all references to "white" male 22 Citizens, and today it refers only to "persons". 23 7. Following the decision in Dred Scott supra, Congress 24 allegedly enacted and ratified the so-called 14th Amendment to 25 the Constitution for the United States of America to afford 26 "statutory citizenship" status to those who were deemed excluded 27 from this Common Law status under the Supreme Court's 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 11 of 65 1 interpretations of the Constitution. This event unfolds in 2 detail in the case law surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments, 3 with a very significant difference which is of great importance 4 to the instant matter. 5 8. Such cases as the Slaughter House Cases supra; 6 Twining v. New Jersey, 211 U.S. 78 (1908); K. Tashiro v. Jordan 7 supra; among many others, all declared that under the Law, 8 "there is a clear distinction between a Citizen of a State and a 9 citizen of the United States". 10

11 9. A famous French statesman, Fredrick Bastiat, noted in 12 the early 1800's that if freedom were to be destroyed in 13 America, it would result from the question of slavery and from 14 the failure to equate all races and all humans as "equals". The 15 Accused is not responsible for the errors of the past and elects 16 not to dwell at length on this subject. However, the so-called 17 14th Amendment must now be discussed and, as abhorrent as it may 18 sound, it is a matter of fact and law that this is the position 19 (intentional or unintentional) which forms the basis of the law 20 with which we live today. 21 10. In brief, as a result of the 13th Amendment, the U.S. 22 Supreme Court decided that the Union of States known as the 23 United States of America was founded by "white" people and for 24 "white" people, and only "white" people could enjoy the Rights, 25 Privileges and Immunities afforded and protected by the Federal 26 and State Constitutions. This fact is most eloquently set forth 27 in Dred Scott v. Sandford supra, in stating that "... if a black 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 12 of 65 1 nation were to adopt our Constitution verbatim, they would have 2 the absolute right to restrict the right of citizenship only to 3 the black population if they chose to do so ...." 4 11. To overcome the decision in Dred Scott supra, the 5 so-called 14th Amendment to the Constitution for the United 6 States of America was allegedly ratified "at the point of a 7 bayonet", and was "declared" to be a part of that Constitution 8 in the year 1868. However, an examination of the ratification 9 by the several States shows that various improper proceedings 10 occurred which, in effect, nullify the Amendment. "I cannot 11 believe that any court, in full possession of its faculties, 12 could honestly hold that the amendment was properly approved 13 and adopted." State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d. 936 (1975); see 14 also Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d. 266 (1968) for historical 15 details. 16

17 12. Accused Common Law Citizen [DEFENDANT] will not 18 digress into an in-depth dissertation of the bogus ratification 19 of the so-called 14th Amendment, because the only necessary 20 point to be made here is that the so-called 14th Amendment had a 21 profound effect upon the Union of these United States, and this 22 effect continues to the present time. 23 13. The Original Constitution for the United States of 24 America (1787) refers to Common Law Citizens of the several 25 States in the Preamble, in Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1 26 (4:2:1), and in numerous other sections. Always, the word 27 Citizen is spelled with an upper-case "C" when referring to this 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 13 of 65 1 class of Common Law Citizen as a "Citizen of the United States", 2 i.e., as a "Citizen of one of the United States". See People v. 3 De La Guerra, 40 Cal. 311, 337 (1870). 4 In contrast, the so-called 14th Amendment utilizes a lower-case 5 "c" to distinguish this class of citizens whose status makes 6 them "subject to the jurisdiction thereof" as a statutory 7 "citizen of the United States". Similarly, "Person" was spelled 8 with an UPPER-CASE "P" prior to the so-called 14th Amendment, as 9 opposed to "person" with a lower-case "p" in Section 1 of the 10 amendment itself. 11

12 15. In law, each word and each use of the word, including 13 its capitalization or the lack of capitalization, has a 14 distinctive legal meaning. In this case, there never was the 15 specific status of a "citizen of the United States" until the 16 advent of the 1866 Civil Rights Act (14 Stat. 27) which was the 17 forerunner of the so-called 14th Amendment. (See Ex Parte 18 Knowles, 5 Cal. 300 (1855). The definition of the "United 19 States" is discussed in the next section of this Memorandum.) 20 16. Before the so-called 14th Amendment was declared to be 21 a part of the U.S. Constitution, there were a number of State 22 "residents" who could not enjoy "Common Law Citizenship" in one 23 of the several States under that Constitution, because they were 24 not "white". The effect of the so-called 14th Amendment was to 25 give to all those residents a citizenship in the nation-state 26 that was created by Congress in the year 1801 and named the 27 "United States". (See 2 Stat. 103; see also U.S. v. Eliason, 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 14 of 65 1 41 U.S. 291, 16 Peter 291, 10 L.Ed. 968 (1842); U.S. v. Simms, 2 1 Cranch 255, 256 (1803).) The original Civil Rights Act of 3 1866 was not encompassing enough, so it was expanded in the year 4 1964; but the legal effect was the same, namely, to grant to 5 "citizens of the United States" the equivalent rights of the 6 Common Law white Citizens of the several States. In reality, 7 however, those "equivalent rights" are limited by various 8 statutes, codes and regulations and can be changed at the whim 9 of Congress. 10 17. Under the Federal and State Constitutions, "... We the 11 People" did not surrender our individual sovereignty to either 12 the State or Federal Government. Powers "delegated" do not 13 equate to powers surrendered. This is a Republic, not a 14 democracy, and the majority cannot impose its will upon the 15 minority simply because some "law" is already set forth. Any 16 individual can do anything he or she wishes to do, so long as it 17 does not damage, injure or impair the same Right of another 18 individual. The concept of a corpus delicti is relevant here, 19 in order to prove some "crime" or civil damage. 20

21 18. The case law surrounding the 13th and 14th Amendments 22 all rings with the same message: "These amendments did not 23 change the status of Common Law Citizenship of the white 24 Citizens of one of the several States of the Union" (now 50 in 25 number). 26 19. This goes to the crux of the controversy because, 27 under the so-called 14th Amendment, citizenship is a privilege 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 15 of 65 1 and not a "Right". (See American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 2 1 Pet. 511 (1828); Cook v. Tait, 265 U.S. 47 (1924).) 3 20. It was never the intent of the so-called 14th 4 Amendment to change the status of the Common Law Citizens of the 5 several States. (See People v. Washington, 36 C. 658, 661 6 (1869); French v. Barber, 181 U.S. 324 (1900); MacKenzie v. 7 Hare, 60 L.Ed. 297). Intent is always decisive and conclusive 8 on the courts. 9

10 21. However, over the years, the so-called 14th Amendment 11 has been used to create a fiction and to destroy American 12 freedom through administrative regulation. How is this 13 possible? The answer is self-evident to anyone who understands 14 the law, namely, a "privilege" can be regulated to any degree, 15 including the alteration and even the revocation of that 16 privilege. 17 22. Since the statutory status of "citizen of the United 18 States, subject to the jurisdiction thereof" (1866 Civil Rights 19 Act) is one of privilege and not of Right, and since the 20 so-called 14th Amendment mandates that both Congress and the 21 several States take measures to protect these new "subjects", 22 then both the Federal and State governments are mandated to 23 protect the privileges and immunities of ONLY these "citizens of 24 the United States". (See Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906).) 25

26 23. Of course, the amount of protection afforded has a 27 price to pay, but the important fact is that the "privilege" of 28 citizenship under the so-called 14th Amendment can be regulated

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 16 of 65 1 or revoked because it is a "privilege" and not a RIGHT. It is 2 here that the basic, fundamental concept of "self-government" 3 turns into a King "governing his subjects". 4 24. One can be called a "freeman", but that was a title of 5 nobility granted by a King. To be really free encompasses a 6 great deal more than grants of titles and privileges. 7

8 25. Over the years since 1787, because our forefathers 9 would have rather fought than bow to involuntary servitude, the 10 "powers that be" have slowly and carefully used the so-called 11 14th Amendment and the Social Security Act to force primary 12 State Citizenship into relative extinction, in the eyes of the 13 courts. Nevertheless, this class of Common Law Citizens is not 14 extinct yet; it is simply being ignored, in order to maintain 15 and enlarge a revenue base for Congress. 16 26. Since the State of California has been mandated by the 17 so-called 14th Amendment to protect the statutory "citizens of 18 the United States", and since the People in general have been 19 falsely led to obtain "Social Security Numbers" as "U.S. 20 citizens", the State of California, under prompting by the 21 Federal Government, has used the licensing and registration of 22 vehicles and people under the "equal protection" clause for the 23 "Public Welfare" to perpetuate a scheme of revenue enhancement 24 and regulation. This scheme has been implemented, in part, by 25 promoting the fiction that the Common Law "Citizens of a State 26 of the Union of several States" can be regulated to the same 27 degree as statutory "citizens of the United States". 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 17 of 65 1 27. I, [DEFENDANT], contend that both the State of 2 California and the Federal Government (known as the "United 3 States") are committing an act of GENOCIDE upon the Common Law 4 State Citizens of the several States by perpetrating and 5 perpetuating the "fiction of law" that everyone is a statutory 6 "citizen of the United States". 7 This allegation is now discussed by proving exactly what 8 the "United States" means and in what capacity it now operates. 9

10 WHAT IS THE "UNITED STATES"? 11 12 28. As we begin, it must be noted that this Common Law 13 State Citizen alleges "fraud" by the State and Federal 14 Governments for failing to inform the People that they are all 15 included (through the use of a fiction of law) in that statutory 16 class of persons called "citizens of the United States". 17 18 29. The use of this fiction of law is particularly 19 abhorrent in view of the fact that, when arbitrarily applied to 20 everyone, the States lose their sovereignty, the Common Law 21 Citizens of the State lose their fundamental rights, and the 22 "citizens of the United States" lose the guidelines which 23 established their "civil rights". The net effect is that these 24 actions have lowered everyone's status to that of a "subject". 25 30. There is a clear distinction between the meanings of 26 "United States" and "United States of America". The People of 27 America have been fraudulently and purposely misled to believe 28 that these terms are completely synonymous in every context.

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 18 of 65 1 31. In fact, in Law the term "United States of America" 2 refers to the several States which are "united by and under the 3 Constitution"; the term "United States" refers to that 4 geographical area defined in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 5 (1:8:17) and in Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2) of the 6 Federal Constitution. 7 32. In 1802, the "Congress Assembled" incorporated a 8 geographical area known as the "United States". The "United 9 States" is, therefore, a nation-state which is separate and 10 unique unto itself. Furthermore, even though the "United 11 States" is not a member of the "Union of States united by and 12 under the Constitution", it is bound by that Constitution to 13 restrict its activities in dealing with the several States and 14 with the Common Law Citizens of those States. Under 1:8:17 and 15 4:3:2 of the Constitution for the United States of America 16 (1787), Congress has exclusive power to legislate and regulate 17 the inhabitants of its geographical territory and its statutory 18 "citizens" under the so-called 14th Amendment, wherever they are 19 "resident", even if they do inhabit one of the 50 States of the 20 Union. 21

22 33. The term "United States" has always referred to the 23 "Congress Assembled", or to those geographical areas defined in 24 1:8:17 and 4:3:2 in the U.S. Constitution. The proof of this 25 fact is found in the Articles of Confederation. 26 ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION 27 Whereas the Delegates of the United States of America in 28 Congress Assembled did on the fifteenth day of November in

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 19 of 65 the year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy 1 Seven, and in the Second Year of the Independence of 2 America agree to certain Articles of Confederation and perpetual union between the States of .... 3 ARTICLE I. The title of this confederacy shall be "The 4 United States of America". 5 ARTICLE II. Each State retains its sovereignty, freedom 6 and independence, and every power, jurisdiction and right, which is not by this confederation expressly delegated to 7 the United States, in Congress Assembled. 8 9 NOTE: The term "UNITED STATES" as used therein refers 10 expressly to "Congress Assembled" on behalf of the several 11 States which comprise the Union of States (now 50 in number). 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 20 of 65 1 34. As can readily be seen from the quote below, with 2 three separate and distinct definitions for the term "United 3 States", it becomes absolutely necessary to separate and define 4 each use of this term in law. It is equally as necessary to 5 separate and define to whom the law applies when there are two 6 classes of citizenship existing side-by-side, with separate and 7 distinct rights, privileges and immunities for each. Such a 8 separate distinction is not made in the Internal Revenue Code. 9 Citizens of the California Republic are nowhere defined in this 10 Code, or in its regulations, but are expressly omitted as such 11 and identified indirectly at best (see IRC 7701(b)(1)(B)). 12 13 The term "United States" may be used in any one of several senses. It may be merely the name of a sovereign occupying 14 the position analogous to that of other sovereigns in a family of nations. It may designate territory over which 15 sovereignty of the United States extends, or it may be the 16 collective name of the States which are united by and under the Constitution. 17 [Hooven & Allison Co. v. Evatt, 324 U.S. 652 (1945)] [65 S.Ct. 870, 880, 89 L.Ed. 1252] 18 [emphasis added] 19 20 35. The term "United States", when used in its territorial 21 meaning, encompasses the areas of land defined in 1:8:17 and 22 4:3:2, nothing more. In this respect, the "United States" is a 23 separate Nation which is foreign with respect to the States 24 united by and under the Constitution, because the "United 25 States" as such has never applied for admission to the Union of 26 States known as the "United States of America". Accordingly, 27 statutory "citizens of the United States", who are "subject to 28 the jurisdiction thereof", are defined in the wording of the

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 21 of 65 1 so-called 14th Amendment and of The Civil Rights Acts. At best, 2 this so-called Amendment is a "private Act", rather than a 3 public act, which designates a class of people who are unique to 4 the territorial jurisdiction of the District of Columbia, the 5 Federal Territories and Possessions, and the land which has been 6 ceded by the Legislatures of the 50 States to the foreign 7 nation-state of the "United States" for forts, magazines, 8 arsenals, dock-yards and "other needful buildings" (see 1:8:17 9 and 4:3:2). Collectively, this territorial jurisdiction is now 10 termed "The Federal Zone" to distinguish it uniquely from the 11 nation as a whole and from the 50 States of the Union. The 12 "nation" can, therefore, be defined as the mathematical union of 13 the federal zone and the 50 States (using the language of set 14 theory). 15 36. The District of Columbia is technically a corporation 16 and is only defined as a "State" in its own codes and under 17 International Law (e.g., see IRC 7701(a)(10)). 18

19 37. The several States which are united by and under the 20 Constitution are guaranteed a "Republican" (or "rule of law") 21 form of government by Article 4, Section 4 of the Constitution. 22 However, the foreign nation-state created by Congress and called 23 the "United States", in its territorial sense, is a "legislative 24 democracy" (or "majority rule" democracy) which is governed by 25 International Law, rather than the Common Law. 26 38. The U. S. Supreme Court has ruled that this foreign 27 nation has every right to legislate for its "citizens" and to 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 22 of 65 1 hold subject matter and in personam jurisdiction, both within 2 (inside) and without (outside) its territorial boundaries, when 3 legislative acts call for such effects (Cook v. Tait supra). 4 39. As a foreign nation under International law, which is 5 derived from Roman Civil Law (see Kent's Commentaries on 6 American Law, Lecture 1), it is perfectly legal for this nation 7 to consider its people as "subjects" rather than as individual 8 Sovereigns. The protections of the State and the Federal 9 Constitutions do not apply to these "subjects" unless there is 10 specific statutory legislation granting specific protections 11 (e.g., The Civil Rights Act). The guarantees of the 12 Constitution extend to the "United States" (i.e., the federal 13 zone) only as Congress has made those guarantees applicable 14 (Hooven supra). 15

16 40. California is a Republic. How does this International 17 Law come into play in the California Republic? The answer to 18 this question is presented in the following section. 19 20 FAILURE TO DISCLOSE 21 22 41. Because only "white" people could hold primary Common 23 Law State Citizenship under the Constitution, Congress created a 24 different class of "citizen" and then legislated rights, 25 privileges and immunities which were intended to be mirror 26 images of the Rights, Privileges and Immunities enjoyed by the 27 Common Law Citizens of the several States. 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 23 of 65 1 2 42. Unfortunately, the nation-state of the "United States" 3 (District of Columbia) is a democracy and not a Republic. It is 4 governed basically under authority of International Law, rather 5 than the Common Law, and its people hold citizenship by 6 "privilege" rather than by "Right". 7

8 43. Certain power-mad individuals, commonly known today as 9 the Directors of the Federal Reserve Board and the twelve (12) 10 major international banking families, have used the so-called 11 14th Amendment to commit "legal genocide" upon the class of 12 Common Law Citizens known as the Citizens of the several States. 13 This has been accomplished by the application of Social Security 14 through fraud, deception and non-disclosure of material facts, 15 for the purpose of reducing the Union of States to a people who 16 are once again enslaved by puppet masters, in order to gather 17 revenue for the profit of international banks and their owners. 18 44. It is a fact so well known and understood that it is 19 indisputable, that "any privilege granted by government is 20 regulatable, taxable and subject to any restrictions imposed by 21 the legislative acts of its governing body", including 22 alteration and even revocation by that governing body. 23

24 45. If necessary to do so, the Accused [DEFENDANT] will 25 submit an offer of proof to show that the "Social Security Act" 26 is, in fact, a private act applying only to the territory of the 27 "United States", acting in its limited municipal capacity, and 28 to its statutory "citizens of the United States", under the

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 24 of 65 1 so-called 14th Amendment. Yet, this Act has been advertised and 2 promoted throughout the several States of the Union as being 3 "mandatory upon the public in general", rather than a "private" 4 act. 5 46. The effect in law is that, when Common Law Citizens of 6 the several States apply for and receive Social Security 7 Numbers, they voluntarily surrender their primary Common Law 8 Citizenship of a State and exchange it for that of a statutory 9 "citizen of the United States". It is most interesting that any 10 State has the power to "naturalize" a non-Citizen, but today 11 everyone is naturalized as "citizens of the United States" under 12 purview of the so-called 14th Amendment. The long-term effect 13 of this procedure is that the Common Law white State Citizens 14 are an endangered species, on the verge of extinction, and only 15 the "subject class citizens" will survive to be ruled at the 16 whim and passion of a jurisdiction which was not intended by our 17 Founding Fathers or the Framers of the original U.S. 18 Constitution. 19 20 JURISDICTION OF THE COURT 21 22 47. Section 1 of the so-called 14th Amendment has had a 23 far-reaching effect upon the several States of this Union, 24 because Congress mandated that it would protect its new 25 statutory "citizens" and that each of the States would also 26 guarantee to protect these special statutory "citizens". 27 48. This Nation was founded upon the fundamental 28 principles of the Common Law and self-government, with limited

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 25 of 65 1 actual government. In contrast, the "subjects" of the "United 2 States" are considered to be incapable of self-government and in 3 need of protection and regulation by those in authority. 4 49. The majority of statute law is civil and regulatory in 5 nature, even when sanctions of a criminal nature are attached 6 for alleged violations. 7

8 50. Among the rights secured by the Common Law in the 9 Constitution in "criminal" cases are the right to know the 10 "nature and cause" of an accusation, the right to confront an 11 accuser, and the right to have both substantive and procedural 12 due process. 13 51. It is a fact that the District Court, in Internal 14 Revenue cases, DOES NOT disclose the nature and cause of the 15 accusation, does not afford "substantive" due process, and 16 rarely produces a "corpus delicti" to prove damage or an injured 17 party. 18

19 52. The final proof is that the rights given to an accused 20 in an Internal Revenue case are "civil rights", rather than 21 Constitutional Rights. The District Court can hear a 22 Constitutional question, but it cannot rule upon the merits of 23 the question, because the Constitution does not apply to 24 regulatory statutes. They are set in place to regulate and 25 protect the statutory "citizens of the United States" who cannot 26 exercise, and are not given, the right of individual 27 self-government. 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 26 of 65 1 53. The Federal Constitution mandates that "counsel" be 2 present at all phases of the proceedings. In contrast, District 3 Court often conducts arraignment proceedings without either 4 counsel for the defense or counsel for the prosecution being 5 present. 6 CONCLUSION 7 54. This Court is proceeding under a jurisdiction which is 8 known to the Constitution, but which is foreign to the intent of 9 the Constitution, unless applied to those individuals who do not 10 have Common Law access by "Right" to the protection of the State 11 and Federal Constitutions. 12

13 55. Whether this jurisdiction be named International Law, 14 Admiralty/Maritime Law, Legislative Equity, Statutory Law or any 15 other name, it is abusive and destructive of the Common Law 16 Rights of the Citizens of the several States. The Constitutions 17 of the California Republic and the United States of America 18 mandate that these rights be guaranteed and protected by all 19 agencies of government. This is the supreme Law of our Land. 20 56. The limit of police power and legislative authority is 21 reached when a statutory "law" derogates or destroys Rights 22 which are protected by the Constitution and which belong to the 23 Common Law Citizens of the several States who can claim these 24 Rights. 25

26 57. [DEFENDANT] is a white, male Common Law Citizen of 27 the Sovereign California Republic. This declaration of status 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 27 of 65 1 is made openly and notoriously on the record of these 2 proceedings. 3 58. As an individual whose primary Common Law Citizenship 4 is of the California Republic, [DEFENDANT] claims all the 5 Rights, Privileges and Immunities afforded and protected by the 6 Constitutions of the California Republic (1849) and of the 7 United States of America (1787), as lawfully amended. 8

9 59. [DEFENDANT] has never, to the best of his knowledge 10 and belief, knowingly, intentionally and voluntarily surrendered 11 his original status as a Common Law Citizen of the several 12 States, to become a so-called 14th Amendment Federal citizen who 13 is subject to the jurisdiction of the "United States". 14 60. This Court is proceeding in a legislative jurisdiction 15 which allows a "civil" statute to be used as evidence of the Law 16 in a "criminal proceeding", and affords only "civil rights", 17 "procedural due process" and the right to be heard on the facts 18 evidenced in the statute, rather than the Law and the facts. 19

20 61. It is now incumbent upon the Court to seat on the Law 21 side of its jurisdiction and to order the plaintiff to bring 22 forth an offer of proof that the Accused [DEFENDANT] can be 23 subjected to a jurisdiction which uses civil statutes as 24 evidence of the fundamental Law in criminal cases, which refuses 25 to afford all Rights guaranteed by the Constitution and 26 available to the Accused in criminal matters, and which 27 practices procedural due process to the exclusion of substantive 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 28 of 65 1 due process, wherein only the "facts" and not the "facts and 2 Law" are at issue. 3 62. Should the prosecution fail to bring forth proof that 4 the Accused [DEFENDANT] has surrendered his original status as a 5 Common Law "California State Citizen" for one that is 6 essentially in "legislative/regulatory equity", then this Court 7 has no alternative but to dismiss this matter of its own motion 8 in the interests of justice, for lack of jurisdiction. 9 10 Dated , 199__ 11

12 Respectfully Submitted 13 14 Citizen of the California Republic 15 In Propria Persona, Sui Juris 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 29 of 65 1 C E R T I F I C A T E O F S E R V I C E 2 I, [DEFENDANT], under penalties of perjury, declare that I 3 am a California Citizen, domiciled in the California Republic, and a Citizen of the several States united by and under the 4 Constitution of the United States of America (see 4:2:1). I am not a "citizen of the United States" (District of Columbia) nor 5 a subject of Congress under the so-called 14th Amendment, nor a 6 "resident" in the State of California who seeks, or who is otherwise under, the protection of the so-called 14th Amendment. 7 It is hereby certified that service of this notice has been 8 made on the Plaintiffs and other interested parties by personal 9 service or by mailing one copy each thereof, on this ______day of ______, 1994, in a sealed envelope, with 10 postage prepaid, properly addressed to them as follows:

11 The Solicitor General 12 Department of Justice Washington, District of Columbia 13 Postal Zone 20530/tdc 14 15 [others as listed here] 16 Dated , 199__ 17 18 Respectfully submitted 19 with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights, 20 21 22 Citizen of the California Republic In Propria Persona, Sui Juris 23 24 [from 9THAPPEA.DIR/APPEAL.DOC] 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 30 of 65 1 STATEMENT OF STATUS AND JURISDICTION 2

3 The Appellant [DEFENDANT], who enjoys the status of a 4 Caucasian Citizen of the California Republic with Common Law 5 Rights by birth as a member of the sovereign political body (see 6 Dred Scott v. Sandford, 19 How. 393, 404 (1856)) and who enjoys 7 these unalienable Common Law rights by virtue of his birth, is 8 not a "citizen of the United States" under the so-called 14th 9 Amendment. Thus, jurisdiction is invoked per the Magna Carta, 10 Chapters 61, 63; the Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776; 11 the Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of 12 America, 1787; Article 3, Sections 1 and 2, and Article 6, 13 Section 2 of the Constitution for the United States of America, 14 (1787); the California Civil Code, Source of Law, Section 22.2; 15 the California Code of Civil Procedure, Section 1899; and 16 Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. 368 (1803). 17 18 ARGUMENT 19 I

20 THE 14TH AMENDMENT WAS NOT PROPERLY APPROVED AND ADOPTED 21 ACCORDING TO THE MANDATES OF THE CONSTITUTION AND THE ACCEPTED MAXIMS OF LAW; 22 IT DID NOT INCLUDE THE WHITE CITIZENS OF THE SEVERAL STATES, AND DID NOT AUTHORIZE CONGRESS TO ABOLISH 23 THE INTENT AND MEANING OF THE ORIGINAL CONSTITUTION (1787) 24 OR TO CREATE A NEW CONSTITUTION UNDER THE 14TH AMENDMENT, THEREBY DEPRIVING THE APPELLANT [DEFENDANT], 25 A WHITE DE JURE STATE CITIZEN, OF HIS UNALIENABLE RIGHTS TO LIFE, LIBERTY AND PROPERTY. 26 27 POINT 1 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 31 of 65 1 The Appellant [DEFENDANT] was indicted and convicted under 2 the purview of the so-called 14th Amendment. Therefore, the 3 constitutionality and application of this so-called amendment is 4 brought squarely before this Court. 5 The so-called 14th Amendment is invalid because it was NOT 6 properly approved and adopted according to the provisions of 7 Article 5 of the Constitution (see House Congressional Record 8 for June 13, 1967, pages 15641-15646, incorporated fully herein 9 by reference and attached as exhibit "A"). 10

11 The so-called Fourteenth Amendment was forced upon the 12 People "at the point of a bayonet" and by the coercion that 13 resulted from not seating various U.S. Senators who would not 14 vote in favor of the proposed amendment, and by various other 15 improper proceedings too numerous to mention here (for details, 16 see 28 Tulane Law Review 22; 11 South Carolina Law Quarterly 17 484). It is apparent that, once a fraud is perpetrated, the 18 fraud enlarges from the effort to maintain illegitimate power 19 and to conceal its legal effect upon the invalidity of the so- 20 called 14th Amendment. 21 The so-called 14th "Amendment" cannot and does not 22 terminate the Constitutional intent of de jure State Citizenship 23 of the Appellant [DEFENDANT]. There is ample evidence that no 24 court has ever held that this "Amendment" was properly approved 25 and adopted. See, in particular, State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 26 936 (1975); Dyett v. Turner, 439 P.2d 266 (1968). 27 28 POINT 2:

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 32 of 65 1 THE ACCUSED'S DE JURE CITIZENSHIP 2 CANNOT BE TAKEN AWAY 3 4 The presumed 14th Amendment is illegally applied to the 5 Appellant [DEFENDANT], a male Caucasian born in the State of 6 Illinois and now a Citizen of California. The Appellant was not 7 within the intent or meaning of the so-called 14th Amendment.

8 It may be stated, as a general principle of law, that it is 9 for the legislature to determine whether the conditions exist which warrant the exercise of power; but the 10 question as to what are the subjects of its exercise, is clearly a judicial question. One may be deprived of his 11 liberty, and his constitutional rights thereto may be 12 violated, without actual imprisonment or restraint of his person. 13 [In re Aubrey, 36 Wn 308, 314-314] 14 [78 P. 900 (1904), emphasis added] 15

16 The most important thing to be determined is the intent of 17 Congress. The language of the statute may not be distorted 18 under the guise of construction, so as to be repugnant to the 19 Constitution, or to defeat the manifest intent of Congress. 20 United States v. Alpers, 338 U.S. 680, 94 L.Ed. 457, 460; 21 United States v. Raynor, 302 U.S. 540, 82 L.Ed. 413, 58 S.Ct. 22 353 (1938). 23 24 Citizenship is a status or condition, and is the result of 25 both act and intent. 14 C.J.S. Section 1, p. 1130, n. 62. 26 14th Amendment federal citizenship is a political status 27 which constitutes a privilege which may be defined and limited 28 by Congress, Ex Parte (Ng) Fung Sing, D.C.Wash., 6 F.2d 670.

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 33 of 65 1 There is a clear distinction between federal and State 2 citizenship, K. Tashiro v. Jordan, 256 P. 545, 201 Cal. 239, 53 3 A.L.R. 1279 (1927), affirmed 49 S.Ct. 47, 278 U.S. 123, 73 L.Ed. 4 214; see also 14 C.J.S. 2, p. 1131, n. 75. 5 The classification "citizen of the United States" is 6 distinguished from a "Citizen of one of the several States", in 7 that the former is a special class of citizen created by 8 Congress, U.S. v. Anthony, 24 Fed 829 (1873). As such, a 9 "citizen of the United States" receives created rights and 10 privileges from Congress, and thus has a "taxable citizenship" 11 as a federal citizen under the protection and jurisdiction of 12 Congress, wherever such citizens are "resident". Cook v. Tait, 13 265 U.S. 47, 44 S. Ct. 447 (1924); 11 Virginia Law Review 607, 14 "Income Tax Based Upon Citizenship". This right to tax federal 15 citizenship is an inherent right under the rule of the Law of 16 Nations, which is part of the law of the "United States", as 17 described in Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17 (1:8:17) and 18 Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 (4:3:2). The Lusitania, 251 F. 19 715, 732 (1918). The federal government has absolutely no 20 authority whatsoever to tax the Citizens of the several States 21 for their Citizenship. The latter have natural Rights and 22 Privileges which are protected by the U.S. Constitution from 23 federal intrusion. These Rights are inherent from birth and 24 belong to "US the People" as Citizens of one of the several 25 States as described in Dred Scott v. Sandford supra. Such 26 Citizens are not under the direct protection or jurisdiction of 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 34 of 65 1 Congress, but they are under the protection of the Constitutions 2 of the States which they inhabit. 3 4

5 The Act of Congress called the Civil Rights Act, 14 U.S. 6 Statutes at Large, p. 27, which was the forerunner of the 7 so-called 14th Amendment, amply shows the intent of Congress, as 8 follows: 9 ... [A]ll persons born in the United States and not subject 10 to any foreign power, excluding Indians not taxed, are hereby declared to be citizens of the United States; and 11 such citizens, of every race and color ... shall have the same right, in every State and Territory in the United 12 States ... to full and equal benefit of all laws and 13 proceedings for the security of person and property, as is enjoyed by white citizens .... 14 [emphasis added] 15

16 This was the intent of Congress, namely, not to infringe upon 17 the Constitution or the status of the de jure Citizens of the 18 several States. The term "persons" did not include the white de 19 jure State Citizens. It was never the intent of the 14th 20 Amendment to subvert the authority of the several States of the 21 Union, or that of the Constitution as it relates to the status 22 of de jure State Citizens. See People v. Washington, 36 C. 658, 23 661 (1869), overruled on other grounds; also French v. Barber, 24 181 U.S. 324 (1901); MacKenzie v. Hare, 60 L. Ed. 297. 25 The so-called 14th Amendment uses language very similar to 26 the Civil Rights Act of 1866. Justice Harlan explained his 27 interpretation of its meaning in a dissenting opinion which 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 35 of 65 1 quoted from the scorching veto message of President Johnson, 2 Lincoln's successor: It "comprehends the Chinese of the Pacific 3 States, Indians subject to taxation, the people called Gypsies, 4 as well as the entire race designated as blacks, persons of 5 color, negroes, mulattoes and persons of African blood. Every 6 individual of those races born in the United States is made a 7 citizen thereof." Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 114, 5 S.Ct. 41, 8 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884); see also In re Gee Hop, 71 Fed. 274 (1895). 9 In light of the statement by Chief Justice Taney in Dred 10 Scott v. Sandford supra at 422, in defining the term "persons", 11 the Judge mentioned "... persons who are not recognized as 12 citizens ...." See also American and Ocean Ins. Co. v. Canter, 13 1 Pet. 511 (1828), which also distinguishes "persons" from 14 "citizens". These were the persons who were the object of the 15 14th Amendment, to give citizenship to this class of native-born 16 "persons" who were "resident" in the several States, and to 17 legislate authority to place races other than the white race 18 within the special category of "citizen of the United States". 19

20 It was the intent of the so-called fourteenth Amendment 21 that de jure Citizens in the several States were not included in 22 its terminology because they were, by birthright, Citizens as 23 defined in the Preamble, and could receive nothing from this so- 24 called amendment. See Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. Sup. Ct. 25 43 (1872). 26 Congress has adopted this definition of "person", as 27 previously described, so that the Internal Revenue Code would be 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 36 of 65 1 constitutional. See McBrier v. Commissioner of Internal 2 Revenue, 108 F.2d 967, Footnote 1 (1939). Thus, Congress has 3 absolute authority to regulate this de facto entity created by 4 an Act of Congress, this juristic person who is not given de 5 jure State Citizenship by birth. 6 Since the term "citizen of the United States" was used to 7 create and distinguish a different class of citizen in the 14th 8 Amendment, this term has been widely used in various revenue 9 acts, e.g., Tariff Act of August 5, 1909, Section 37, c. 6, 36 10 Stat. 11; Act of September 8, 1916, 39 Stat. 756; Revenue Act 11 of November 23, 1921, 40 Stat. 227; the Internal Revenue Code 12 of 1939; and 26 CFR 1.1-1(b). These all had a specific 13 meaning, which did not include a Citizen of one of the several 14 States who had no franchise with the federal Government (i.e., 15 the District of Columbia). In fact, the Social Security Act, 49 16 Stat. 620, Title I, Section 2(b) states: 17 18 The Board ... shall not approve any plan which imposes, as a condition of eligibility for old-age assistance under the 19 plan -- ...

20 (3) Any citizenship requirement which excludes any citizen 21 of the United States. 22 23 This specifically means that the Original Social Security 24 Act, created in 1935, did not change one's Citizenship upon 25 obtaining a SSN. The original Title VIII of the Social Security 26 Act was repealed by P.L. 76-1, Section 4, 53 Stat. 1, effective 27 February 11, 1939. Then the substance was added to the 1939 28 Income Tax Code at Sections 1400-1425. Currently, the substance

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 37 of 65 1 of the repealed section can be found in the 1954 Internal 2 Revenue Code at Sections 3101-3126. This repealing, in effect, 3 has voided the original intent and meaning, and replaced it with 4 a new intent and meaning. This new intent is unconstitutionally 5 applied to the Appellant, a de jure State Citizen, who is a 6 member of the Posterity as identified in the Preamble to the 7 Constitution for the United States of America. This new intent 8 has never been addressed by any court, as it relates to the 9 deprivation of State Citizenship. 10 All changes made after the fact, under the Social Security 11 Act as it relates to Citizenship, are null and void due to fraud 12 (specifically, non-disclosure). Congress does not now, nor has 13 it ever had, the authority to take Citizenship away from the 14 Appellant, a Citizen of the several States, without his 15 knowledge and informed consent. 16

17 The error occurs when, through economic duress and the 18 failure to disclose to Appellant [DEFENDANT] the liabilities 19 associated with a Social Security Number, a de jure State 20 Citizen is compelled "at the point of a bayonet" to give up a 21 Citizenship that was derived by birth and blood. By obtaining a 22 Social Security Number, such a State Citizen becomes, in effect, 23 a second-class citizen under the so-called 14th Amendment, in 24 order to obtain work to purchase necessities to sustain life. 25 The so-called 14th Amendment was not intended to impose any 26 new restrictions upon Citizenship, or to prevent anyone from 27 becoming a Citizen by fact of birth within the United States of 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 38 of 65 1 America, who would thereby acquire Citizenship according to the 2 law existing before its adoption. "An amendatory act does not 3 alter the rights existing before its adoption." Billings v. 4 Hall, 7 Cal. 1 (1857). Its main purpose was to establish the 5 citizenship of free negroes and to put it beyond any doubt that 6 all blacks as well as whites were citizens. U.S. v. Wong Kim 7 Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 18 S.Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 (1898); Slaughter 8 House Cases, 16 Wall. (U.S.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873); Strauder 9 v. West Virginia, 100 U.S. 303, 25 L.Ed. 664 (1880); In re 10 Virginia, 100 U.S. 339 (1880); Neal v. Delaware, 103 U.S. 370, 11 26 L.Ed. 567 (1881); Elk v. Wilkins, 112 U.S. 94, 5 S.Ct. 41, 12 28 L.Ed. 643 (1884); Van Valkenburg v. Brown, 43 Cal. 43, 13 13 Am. Rep. 136 (1872); (numerous other cites omitted). 14 The First Clause of the so-called 14th Amendment of the 15 Federal Constitution made negroes "citizens of the United 16 States" and citizens of the State in which they reside, and 17 thereby created two classes of citizens: one of the United 18 States and the other of the State. 4 Dec. Dig. '06, page 1197; 19 Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327, 17 Am. Rep. 738; and it 20 distinguishes between federal and state citizenship, Frasher v. 21 State, 3 Tex. App. 263, 30 Am. Rep. 131. 22

23 Nothing can be found in the so-called 14th Amendment, or in 24 any reference thereto, that establishes any provision which 25 transforms Citizens of any Union State into "citizens of the 26 United States". In the year 1868 or now (1994), the so-called 27 14th amendment created no new status for the white State 28 Citizens. White State Citizens are natural born Citizens, per

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 39 of 65 1 Article 2, Section 1, Clause 5 (2:1:5) and, as such, they are 2 fully entitled to the "Privileges and Immunities" mentioned in 3 Article 4, Section 2, Clause 1 (4:2:1), as unalienable rights. 4 These unalienable rights cannot be overruled or abolished by any 5 act of congress. 6 The birthright of the Appellant [DEFENDANT]'s de jure State 7 Citizenship cannot be subordinated merely because Congress 8 desires more power and control over the people, in order to 9 create a larger revenue base for the profit of certain private 10 individuals. Oyama v. California, 332 U.S. 633 (1948). 11 12 State citizenship, as defined, regulated and protected by 13 State authority, would disappear altogether, except as 14 Congress might choose to withhold the exercise of powers. 15 The tendency of Congress, especially since the adoption of 16 the recent amendments, has been to overstep its own 17 boundaries and undertake duties not committed to it by the 18 Constitution. 19 [16 Albany Law Journal 24 (1877), (Exhibit B)] 20 21 A citizen may not have his de jure citizenship taken away, 22 Richards v. Secretary of State, (9th Cir) 752 F.2d 1413, (1985); 23 Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253, 87 S.Ct. 1660, 18 L.Ed.2d 757 24 (1967); Baker v. Rusk, 296 F. Supp. 1244 (1969); Vance v. 25 Terrazas, 444 U.S. 252, 100 S.Ct. 540, 62 L.Ed.2d 461 (1980); 26 U.S. v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 18 S. Ct. 456, 42 L.Ed. 890 27 (1898). 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 40 of 65 1 POINT 3 2

3 In the formation of the Constitution for the United States 4 of America, care was taken to confer no power upon the federal 5 government to control and regulate Citizens within the several 6 States, because such control would lead to tyranny. 7 By the Constitution, Congress was to be a representative 8 of, and an extension of the Several States only for external 9 affairs. Congress was forbidden to pass municipal laws to 10 regulate and control de jure Citizens of a State of the Union of 11 the United States of America. This is, without a doubt, the 12 true construction of the intent of the Constitution. 13

14 That Congress has no authority to pass laws and bind the 15 rights of the Citizens in the several States, beyond the powers 16 conferred by the Constitution, is not open to controversy. But, 17 it is insisted that (1) under the so-called 14th Amendment, 18 Congress has power to legislate for, and make a subject of, the 19 Appellant [DEFENDANT] through secret interpretations of the law 20 and (2) by force of power, laws are enacted in order to control, 21 by force and fraud, the Nation and the People within the several 22 States for the purpose of raising revenue for the profit of the 23 Federal Reserve banks and their private owners. 24 25 26 No rational man can hesitate to believe that the 27 deprivations of Citizenship and the abuses of the Constitution 28 are not derived from the Federal Reserve Act. No one can deny

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 41 of 65 1 that Congress has thereby attempted to abolish the 2 classification of de jure Citizen of a State of the Union of the 3 United States, so that a ever larger revenue base can be 4 maintained. 5 ... nor would the government suffer a loss of his 6 withholdings.

7 [[DEFENDANT]'s Pre-Sentence Report, [DATE], page 10] 8

9 This establishes, without a doubt, that the United States 10 government is only concerned about raising revenue under forced 11 extraction by the withholding system, which was prompted by the 12 Federal Reserve banks at the instigation of Beardsley Ruml, 13 former chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. 14 Congress, through Social Security and the so-called 14th 15 Amendment, cannot do indirectly what the Constitution prohibits 16 directly. If Congress, by pseudo power, can legislate away 17 [DEFENDANT]'s status as a de jure Citizen of the several States, 18 so might Congress exclude all of [DEFENDANT]'s unalienable 19 Rights as protected and guaranteed by the Constitution. 20

21 Social Security and the Federal Reserve banks, by creating 22 a fictitious debt, have re-instituted an insidious form of 23 slavery. All slavery has its origin in power, thus usurping a 24 jurisdiction which does not belong to them and which is against 25 the unalienable Rights of the appellant [DEFENDANT]. 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 42 of 65 1 Our Constitution is a restraint upon government, purposely 2 provided and declared upon consideration of all the consequences 3 which it prohibits and permits, making restraints upon 4 government the rights of the governed. This careful adjustment 5 of power and rights makes the constitution what it was intended 6 to be and is, namely, a real charter of liberty which deserves 7 the praise that has often been given to it as "The most 8 wonderful work ever struck off at any given time by the brain 9 and purpose of man." Block v. Hirsch, 256 U.S. 135, 267 Fed. 10 614 (1920). 11 Thus, this court must uphold the principles upon which the 12 Constitution was founded; it must be held to guarantee not 13 particular forms of procedure, but the very substance of 14 individual Rights to life, liberty and property. Basic "State 15 Citizenship" is the absolute bulwark against "National Tyranny" 16 as is fostered and applied through the so-called 14th Amendment. 17 Nowhere in the debates, papers or any court decision written by 18 anyone does it state that the Constitution authorizes Congress 19 to destroy the State Citizenship of the Appellant [DEFENDANT]. 20

21 Prior to the Federal Reserve Act, no political dreamer was 22 ever wild enough to think of breaking down the lines which 23 separate the States, and of compounding the American People into 24 one common mass of slaves. Yet, this is exactly what has 25 happened under Social Security, by creating a revenue base for 26 the collection of interest on a fictitious national debt owed to 27 the Federal Reserve banks, in other words, slavery to the 28 national debt under the so-called 14th Amendment.

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 43 of 65 1 The status of "de jure State Citizen" is [DEFENDANT]'s 2 property. When the application of Social Security annihilates 3 the value of any property and strips it of its attributes, by 4 which alone it is distinguishable as property, the Appellant 5 [DEFENDANT], a de jure State Citizen, is deprived of it 6 according to the plainest interpretation of the 5th Amendment, 7 and certainly within the Constitutional provisions intended to 8 shield [DEFENDANT]'s personal Rights and liberty from the 9 exercise of arbitrary government power. 10 This is a case of "suspect classification" in that the 11 Appellant [DEFENDANT] is "saddled with such disabilities ... as 12 to command extraordinary protection from the majoritarian 13 process ...." 411 U.S. 2, 28. 14

15 Thus, the devolution of [DEFENDANT]'s de jure State Citizenship 16 into the classification of a de facto juristic person under the 17 so-called 14th Amendment is such a "suspect classification" and 18 must be reviewed in the light of the original intent of our 19 Founding Fathers in establishing the Union of several States in 20 the first place. 21 Citizenship under the so-called 14th Amendment is a 22 privilege granted by Congress, i.e., a civil status conferring 23 limited rights and privileges, not a birthright that is secured 24 by the Constitution. [DEFENDANT], a white de jure State 25 Citizen, by virtue of his birth in one of the several States, 26 received that which cannot be granted by Congress, nor can 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 44 of 65 1 Congress make void a Citizenship status which he derived by 2 birth and by blood. 3 ... [A]nd no member of the state should be disfranchised, 4 or deprived of any of his rights or privileges under the constitution, unless by the law of the land, or judgment of 5 his peers. 6 [Kent's Commentaries, Vol. II, p. 11, 1873, 12th ed.] 7 8 There can be no law, statute or treaty that can be in 9 conflict with the intent of the original founding Constitution. 10 For, if this were permitted to occur, the founding Constitution 11 would be a nullity. The original Constitution of 1787 is 12 perpetual, as is the Citizenship that is recognized by it. See 13 Texas v. White, 7 Wallace 700 (1869). If any legislation is 14 repugnant to the Constitution, this Court has the eminent power 15 to declare such enactments null and void ab initio (from their 16 inception). See Marbury v. Madison, 5 U.S. (1 Cranch) 137, 17 pages 177-180 (1803). 18 The rule that should be applied is that laws, especially 19 foundational laws such as our Constitution, should be 20 interpreted and applied according to the plain import of the 21 language used, as it would have been the intent and understood 22 by our Founding Fathers. The so-called 14th Amendment has been 23 used to distort and nullify the purposes and intent of the 24 foundational Constitution, for the ulterior motive of giving 25 pseudo power where no such power was ever granted or intended, 26 and where such pseudo power was specifically denied in the 27 Constitution. 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 45 of 65 1 This has resulted in the complete annihilation of the 2 balance of checks so desired by our Founding Fathers. One of 3 these was the sovereignty of the People. At the present time, 4 the "United States", under Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17, has 5 extended its pseudo authority to abolish the status of de jure 6 State Citizens, and to render [DEFENDANT] a "federal" citizen 7 under the so-called 14th Amendment who is more apply described 8 as a subject of Congress and a "federal" resident within one of 9 the several States. This has had the unlawful effect of denying 10 [DEFENDANT]'s birthright to be a free born de jure State 11 Citizen, as was the intent of the original Constitution. 12 The so-called 14th Amendment did not authorize Congress to 13 change either the Citizenship or the status of Citizens of the 14 several States. "They are unaffected by it." U.S. v. Anthony, 15 24 Fed. Cas. 829 (1873). Yet, through deliberate misinter- 16 pretation of the Act, Congress has by statute overruled and 17 voided the Constitution. This was done at the prompting of the 18 Federal Reserve banks and their private owners. 19

20 In application, Congress and the Federal Reserve banks have 21 utilized the so-called 14th Amendment as a totally new 22 Constitution, solely for the benefit of the Federal Reserve 23 banks, and to the detriment of Appellant [DEFENDANT], a 24 sovereign Citizen of the California Republic. 25 This Union of the United States of America was founded upon 26 the principles of the Christianity and the common law. Force 27 and fraud cannot prevail against the will of the People and the 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 46 of 65 1 Constitution. The legislative intent of the so-called 14th 2 Amendment was only to grant statutory citizenship to a distinct 3 class of people, not to create a new constitution. This court 4 must determine whether the "act" was properly approved and 5 adopted. State v. Phillips, 540 P.2d 936, 942 (1975). If it 6 was properly approved and adopted, this court must also 7 determine if it is also being unconstitutionally applied against 8 the Appellant [DEFENDANT], a de jure State Citizen of California. 9 The abuses heaped upon the Appellant, a California State 10 Citizen, only foretell the impending doom and downfall of a 11 centralized government. Our Founding Fathers understood this, 12 and the Constitution was written so that this would not occur. 13 But, to the great shame of the judicial system, they have let 14 the thirst for power prevail over the Constitution. (Exhibit A) 15

16 Hitler used National Social Insurance to control and 17 enslave the people of Germany. Likewise, the "United States" 18 (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) is doing the same thing here 19 in America. (Perhaps now it should be spelled "Amerika".) When 20 is enough enough? When will the courts quit playing "ostrich", 21 pull their heads out of the sand, see what is happening and 22 correct the situation before it is too late? The camel of 23 tyranny now has its nose and its two front legs under the tent. 24 Congress has passed the 14th Amendment under force of arms, 25 included the municipal codes of the District of Columbia into 26 the United States Codes, and made various secret interpretations 27 of the acts, never inquiring whether they had authority to 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 47 of 65 1 proceed. But, can this Court also undertake for itself the same 2 sundry constructions? The Executive, Legislative and Judicial 3 Branches have all repeatedly acknowledged that our particular 4 security is in the possession and adherence to the written 5 Constitution. Yet, by various and sundry constructions and the 6 wrongful application of the acts of Congress, the House and 7 Senate are attempting to turn the Constitution into a blank 8 piece of paper, with complete judicial approval. 9 [DEFENDANT], a de jure natural State Citizen, is in full 10 possession of all personal and political Rights, which the 11 "United States" (Article 1, Section 8, Clause 17) did not give 12 and cannot take away. Dred Scott v. Sandford supra at 513; 13 Afroyim v. Rusk, 387 U.S. 253 (1967); U.S. v. Miller, 463 F.2d 14 600 (1972). Nor is the Appellant, a de jure State Citizen, 15 restrained by any enumeration or definition of his Rights or 16 liberties. The so-called 14th Amendment did not impair or 17 change the status of the de jure Citizens of the several States 18 in the Union of the United States of America. To imply that an 19 act of Congress supersedes and makes null and void the 20 Constitution for the United States of America, is blatantly and 21 demonstrably absurd. This construction cannot be enforced or 22 adopted by any legal authority whatsoever. 23

24 The municipal jurisdiction of Congress does not extend to 25 the Appellant or to his private property. This is the case 26 because he is a de jure State Citizen of one of the several 27 States. The municipal jurisdiction of Congress only extends to 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 48 of 65 1 the limits as defined in the Constitution itself (see 1:8:17 and 2 4:3:2). 3 Where rights are secured by the Constitution there can be 4 no legislation or rule making which would abrogate them.

5 [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436] 6

7 Thus, the Citizenship of the Appellant as a Citizen of 8 California must be upheld by the preceding positive statement 9 and decree by the U.S. Supreme Court. This court must uphold 10 this principle of law. 11 II 12 THE PREAMBLE AND THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION ARE IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT. 13 THEREFORE, CONGRESS CANNOT DEPRIVE 14 A WHITE STATE CITIZEN OF HIS DE JURE STATE CITIZENSHIP AS A MEMBER OF THE POSTERITY, 15 AS WAS THE INTENT DEFINED IN THE PREAMBLE. 16

17 POINT 1 18 19 The Preamble to the Constitution for the United States of 20 America declares the intent and purpose of the covenant: 21 We, the People of the United States, in Order to form a 22 more perfect Union, establish justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the 23 general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to 24 ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America. 25 [Preamble] 26

27 Justice Story, in his Commentaries on the Constitution, 28 expounded on the importance of this Preamble:

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 49 of 65 1 The importance of examining the preamble, for the purpose 2 of expounding the language of a statute, has been long felt, and universally conceded in all judicial discussions. 3 It is an admitted maxim in the ordinary course of the administration of justice, that the preamble of a statute 4 is a key to open the mind of the makers, as to the 5 mischiefs, which are to be remedied, and the objects, which are to be accomplished by the provisions of the statute. 6 We find it laid down in some of our earliest authorities in the common law; and civilians are accustomed to a similar 7 expression, cessante ratione legis, cessat et ipsa lex. 8 Probably it has a foundation in the exposition of every code of written law, from the universal principle of 9 interpretation, that the will and intention of the legislature is to be regarded and followed. It is properly 10 resorted to, where doubts or ambiguities arise upon the 11 words of the enacting part; for if they are clear and unambiguous, there seems little room for interpretation, 12 except in cases leading to an obvious absurdity, or to a direct overthrow of the intention expressed in the Preamble. 13 [Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States] 14 [Joseph Story, Vol. 1, De Capo Press Reprints (1970)] [at pages 443, 444] 15 16 With the authority of Justice Story, then, we examine the 17 wording of the Preamble as to the term "Union". The term 18 "Union" as used in the Preamble is evidently the one declared in 19 the Declaration of Independence (1776) and organized in 20 accordance with "certain articles of Confederation and Perpetual 21 Union between the States" which declared that "the Union shall 22 be perpetual." See Texas v. White, 7 Wallace 700 (1869). 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 50 of 65 The Union of the States never was a purely artificial 1 and arbitrary relation. It began among Colonies, and grew 2 out of common origin, mutual sympathies, kindred principles, similar interest, and geographical relations. 3 It was confirmed, strengthened by the necessities of war, and received definite form, and character, and sanction 4 from the Articles of Confederation. By these the Union was 5 solemnly declared to "be perpetual." And when these Articles were found to be inadequate to the exigencies of 6 the country, the Constitution was ordained "to form a more perfect union." It is difficult to convey the idea of 7 indissoluble unity more clearly than these words. What can 8 be indissoluble if a perpetual Union, made more perfect, is not? 9 But the perpetuity and indissolubility of the Union, 10 by no means implies the loss of distinct and individual 11 existence, or of the right of self-government by the States. Under the Articles of Confederation each State 12 retained its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right not expressly 13 delegated to the United States. Under the Constitution, 14 though, the powers of the States were much restricted, still, all powers not delegated to the United States, nor 15 prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States respectively or to the people. And we have already had 16 occasion to remark at this term, that "the people of each 17 State compose a State, having its own government, and endowed with all the functions essential to separate and 18 independent existence," and that "without the States in union, there could be no such political body as the United 19 States." Not only, therefore, can there be no loss of 20 separate and independent autonomy to the States, through their union under the Constitution, but it may be not 21 unreasonably said that the preservation of the States, and the maintenance of their governments, are as much within 22 the design and care of the maintenance of the National 23 government. The Constitution, in all its provisions, looks to an indestructible Union, composed of indestructible 24 States.

25 When, therefore, Texas became one of the United 26 States, she entered into a indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guarantees of 27 republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the 28 Union was something more than a compact; it was the

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 51 of 65 incorporation of a new member into the political body. And 1 it was final. The union between Texas and the other States 2 was as complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States. There was no place for 3 reconsideration, or revocation, except through revolution, or through consent of the States. 4 5 [Texas v. White, 7 Wall. 700, 723-726 (1869)] 6 7 Similarly, the term "establish", as used in the Preamble, 8 means to fix perpetually: 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 52 of 65 STAB'LISH ... 1 2 1. To set and fix firmly or unalterable; to settle permanently. 3 I will establish my covenant with him for an 4 everlasting covenant. Gen. xvii 5 2.To found permanently; to erect and fix or settle; 6 as, to establish a colony or empire.

7 3.To enact or decree by authority and for permanence 8 4.To settle or fix; to confirm. 9 5.To make firm; to confirm; to ratify what has 10 been previously set or made. 11 Do we then make void the law through faith? God 12 forbid: yea, we establish the law. Rom. iii.

13 [An American Dictionary of the English Language] 14 [Noah Webster (1828), reprinted by] [Foundation for American Christian Education (1967)] 15

16 ESTABLISH. This word occurs frequently in the Constitution 17 of the United States, and it is there used in different meanings: 18 1. to settle firmly, to fix unalterable; as to 19 establish justice, which is the avowed object of 20 the Constitution ... 21 2. To settle or fix firmly; place on a permanent footing; found; create; put beyond doubt or 22 dispute; prove; convince ... 23 [Black's Law Dictionary supra, at page 642] 24 25 Thus, if the Union is perpetual, then so too is the 26 founding law upon which that Union was predicated in the first 27 place, and so too is the Sovereign and unalienable Citizenship 28 recognized therein.

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 53 of 65 1 POINT 2 2 THE ORGANIC LAW 3 AND THE UNION FOUNDED THEREON ARE PERPETUAL 4 5 The founding Law of the nation is the perpetual authority 6 upon which the continued existence of the nation itself is 7 predicated. As such, the founding Law carries universal 8 authority and cannot be overthrown or subverted without 9 repudiating the very existence of the nation established thereby. 10 11 ORGANIC LAW. The fundamental law, or constitution, of a state or nation, written or unwritten; that law or system 12 of laws or principles which defines and establishes the organization of its government. St. Louis v. Dorr, 145 Mo. 13 466, 46 S.W. 976, 42 LRA 686, 68 Am St Rep 575 14 [Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., West Pub. (1968), p. 1251] 15

16 The authority of the organic law is universally 17 acknowledged; it speaks the sovereign will of the people; its injunction regarding the process of legislation is as 18 authoritative as are those touching the substance of it. Suth. Statutory Construction, 44, note 1. "This 19 Constitution ... shall be the supreme Law of the 20 Land ...." Article 6, Constitution of the United States (1787). 21 That the people have an original right to establish, 22 for their future government, such principles as, in their 23 opinion, shall be most conducive to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been 24 erected. The exercise of the original right is a very great exertion, nor can it, nor ought it to be frequently 25 repeated. The principles, therefore, so established, are 26 deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed 27 to be permanent. 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 54 of 65 The original and supreme will organizes the 1 government, and assigns, to different departments, their 2 respective powers. It may either stop here; or establish certain limits not to be transcended by those departments. 3 The government of the United States is of the latter 4 description. The powers of the legislature are defined, 5 and limited; and those limits may not be mistaken, or forgotten, the constitution is written. To what purpose 6 are the powers limited, and to what purpose is that limitation committed to writing, if the limits may, at any 7 time be passed by those intended to be restrained? The 8 distinction, between a government with limited and unlimited powers, is abolished, if those limits do not 9 confine the persons on whom they are imposed, and if acts prohibited and acts allowed, are of equal obligation. It 10 is a proposition too plain to be contested, that the 11 constitution controls any legislative act repugnant to it; or, that the legislature may alter the constitution by an 12 ordinary act.

13 Between these alternatives there is no middle ground. 14 The constitution is either a superior, paramount law, unchangeable by ordinary means, or it is on a level with 15 ordinary legislative acts, and like other acts, is alterable when the legislature shall please to alter it. 16 17 If the former part of the alternative be true, then a legislative act contrary to the constitution is not law: if 18 the latter be true, then written constitutions are absurd attempts, on the part of the people, to limit a power, in 19 its own nature illimitable. Certainly all those who have 20 framed written constitutions contemplate them as forming the fundamental and paramount law of the nation, and 21 consequently the theory of every such government must be, that an act of the legislature, repugnant to the 22 constitution, is void .... 23 If then the courts are to regard the constitution; 24 and the constitution is superior to any ordinary act of the legislature; the constitution, and not such ordinary act, 25 must govern the case to which they both apply. 26 Those then who controvert the principle that the 27 constitution is to be considered, in court, as a paramount law, are reduced to the necessity of maintaining that the 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 55 of 65 courts must close their eyes on the constitution, and see 1 only the law. 2 [Marbury v. Madison, 1 Cranch 137] 3 [pages 176 to 178 (1803)] 4 5 III

6 AN INDICTMENT IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN A CONVICTION, IF IT USES WORDS OF NUMEROUS MEANINGS, 7 SO AS TO BE VAGUE AND AMBIGUOUS, 8 SO THE DEFENDANT IS UNCERTAIN OF SECRET AND SPECIFIC MEANINGS, 9 THEREBY BEING DENIED A DEFENSE. 10

11 1. The indictment utilizes the term "resident" as its 12 jurisdictional statement, without any further clarification. 13 "The jurisdiction of a federal court must affirmatively 14 and distinctly appear and cannot be helped by presumptions or by 15 argumentive inferences drawn from the pleadings." Norton v. 16 Larney, 266 U.S. 511, 515, 45 S. Ct. 145, 69 L.Ed. 413 (1925). 17 Accord, Bender v. Williamsport Area Schools District, 475 U.S. 18 534, 106 S.Ct. 1326, 1334, 89 L.Ed.2d 501, rehearing denied, 106 19 S.Ct. 2003 (1986); Nor can a contester's allegations of 20 jurisdiction be read in isolation from the complaint's factual 21 allegations, Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 676, 80 S.Ct. 22 1288, 4 L.Ed.2d 1478 (1960), nor can jurisdiction be effectively 23 established by omitting facts which would establish that it does 24 not exist. Lambert Run Coal Co. v. Baltimore & Ohio R. Co., 258 25 U.S. 377, 382, 42 S.Ct. 349, 66 L.Ed. 671 (1922). Nor can 26 jurisdiction be "gleaned from the briefs and arguments" of the 27 Plaintiff. Bender supra, 106 S.Ct. at 1334. The burden fully 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 56 of 65 1 to demonstrate jurisdiction clearly falls on the Plaintiff, and 2 a failure fully to define the conditions creating some nexus 3 under the ambiguous term "resident" is an error. 4 The requirement to prove jurisdiction is particularly 5 important when the government of a foreign state (the "United 6 States") brings criminal charges against a Citizen of another 7 State. 8

9 Where jurisdiction is denied and squarely challenged, 10 jurisdiction cannot be assumed to exist "sub silentio" but must 11 be proven. Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 528, 533, n. 5; Monell v. 12 N.Y., 436 U.S. 633. Mere "good faith" assertions of power and 13 authority (jurisdiction) have been abolished. Owen v. Indiana, 14 445 U.S. 622; Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478; Bivens v. 6 15 unknown agents, 403 U.S. 388. 16 An indictment is "vague" if it does not allege each of the 17 essential elements of the crime with sufficient clarity to 18 enable the defendant to prepare his defense. U.S. v. BI-CO 19 Pavers, 741 F.2d 730 (1984). Where the defendant must guess at 20 its meaning, it is vague and violates the first essential 21 element of due process. See Connolly v. General Construction 22 Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391, 46 S.Ct. 126, 127, 70 L.Ed. 322 (1926). 23 24 It is an elementary principle of criminal pleading, that where the definition of an offense, whether it be at common 25 law or by statute, "includes generic terms, it is not sufficient that the indictment shall charge the offense in 26 the same generic terms as in the definition; but it must 27 state the species; it must descend to the particulars. 1 Arch. Cr. Pr. and Pl. 291. 28 [U.S. v. Cruikshank, La. 92 U.S. 542, 558 (1872)]

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 57 of 65 [emphasis added] 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 58 of 65 IV 1 2 IRC SECTION 7203, IN AND OF ITSELF, IS INSUFFICIENT TO SUSTAIN AN INDICTMENT AND CONVICTION, 3 WHEN NO OTHER STATUTE IS ALLEGED TO HAVE BEEN VIOLATED. 4

5 IRC 7203, in and of itself, does not describe a triable 6 offense, nor does it state any basis for any crimes or public 7 offenses, so as to confer jurisdiction for any issue that is 8 triable as a "misdemeanor". On the contrary, as will be shown, 9 jurisdiction is absent. 10 Sec. 7203. Willful Failure to File Return, Supply 11 Information, or Pay Tax.

12 Any person required under this title to pay any estimated 13 tax or tax, or required by this title or by regulations made under authority thereof to make a return, keep any 14 records, or supply any information, who willfully fails to pay such estimated tax or tax, make such return, keep such 15 records, or supply such information at the time or times 16 required by law and regulations, shall, in addition to other penalties provided by law, be guilty of a misdemeanor 17 and, upon conviction thereof, shall be fined not more than $25,000 ($100,000 in the case of a corporation), or 18 imprisoned not more than 1 year, or both, together with the 19 costs of the prosecution. In the case of any person with respect to whom there is a failure to pay any estimated 20 tax, this section shall not apply to such person with respect to such failure if there is no addition to tax 21 under section 6654 or 6655 with respect to such failure. 22 [IRC 7203] 23 24 IRC 7203 fails to provide any definition of any offense by 25 failing to charge any statutory crime in any language of any 26 statute. 27 The language of IRC 7203, in and of itself, and any alleged 28 violation as propounded in Appellee's indictment, fails to be

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 59 of 65 1 fully descriptive of any offense or crime. It is, therefore, 2 fundamentally impossible to violate Section 7203 since this 3 Section, in and of itself, does not include or refer to any 4 specific statute that could provide a nexus for prosecution, as 5 is clearly shown in U.S. v. Menk, 260 F. Supp. 784: 6 But, rather, all three sections referred to in the 7 information, sections 4461, 4901, and 7203, must be considered together before a complete definition of the 8 offense is found. Section 4461 imposes a tax on persons engaged in a certain activity; section 4901 provides the 9 payment of the tax shall be a condition precedent to 10 engaging in the activity subject to the tax and Section 7203 makes it a misdemeanor to engage in the activity 11 without first having paid the tax, and provides the penalty. It is impossible to determine the meaning or 12 intended effect of any one of these three sections without 13 reference to the others. [U.S. v. Menk supra, emphasis added] 14 15 16 Contrary to the accusatory pleadings, IRC 7203, in and of 17 itself, is not a statute subject to violation since it is 18 nothing more than a penalty clause for some undefined franchise 19 obligation. Section 7203, upon which the Appellee's indictment 20 is based, fails to provide a complete definition of any offense, 21 and therefore, in and of itself, it fails to state properly a 22 claim upon which probable cause could predicate. As the Court 23 stated in U.S. v. Menk supra: 24 The Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has repeatedly 25 held that an indictment or information is sufficient which 26 defines a statutory crime substantially in the language of the statute if such language is fully descriptive of the 27 offense. [U.S. v. Menk supra at 786] 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 60 of 65 1 Section 7203 contains no such descriptive language, nor does it 2 identify any other statutes. 3 It cannot be said that Section 7203 imposes a tax on 4 persons engaged in a certain activity, nor can it be said that 5 7203 provides that the payment of the tax shall be a condition 6 precedent to engaging in the activity subject to the tax. 7 However, 7203 makes it a misdemeanor to engage in the activity 8 without having first paid the tax, and provides the penalty. In 9 addition, 7203 makes it a misdemeanor not to file a return, keep 10 records or supply information that may be required by several 11 other statutes and regulations, which specifically determine 12 that activity and crime. 13

14 Because the activity in the Appellees' indictment is 15 undefined, Section 7203 is not, in and of itself, a basis for 16 prosecution, and there is no probable cause of action against 17 the Appellant. Similarly, it is impossible to determine the 18 meaning or intended effect of Section 7203 without having 19 reference to other possibly applicable and as yet undefined 20 sections of the Internal Revenue Code. 21 Plainly and simply, Section 7203 is only a penalty statute, 22 and by itself cannot stand without reference to other statutes 23 and or regulations. An IRS agent stated on the record that no 24 other statutes were violated or identified as such before the 25 grand jury (CR June 28, 1988, p. 13, lines 5-12). 26

27 Thus the indictment is vague and the court is in error in 28 sustaining the indictment and conviction.

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 61 of 65 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 62 of 65 V 1 2 THE DEFINITION OF THE WORD "PERSON" USED IN SECTION 7203, AS DEFINED IN 7343 FOR CHAPTER 75, WHICH INCLUDES 7203, 3 CANNOT BE EXTENDED TO INCLUDE SOMEONE OTHER THAN THE INDIVIDUALS DESCRIBED IN SECTION 7343. 4 5 6 The words used in a statute cannot be extended beyond the 7 clear meaning and intent of the legislative body which created 8 the statute. 9 The courts, in construing the words of any statute, cannot 10 include someone other than the ones described in that statute; 11 to do so would be like extending the law that controls the speed 12 of an airplane propeller to include a pedestrian walking along a 13 path in a forest. 14 15 Chapter 75, which contains Section 7343, carries the 16 heading "Crimes, Other Offenses, and Forfeitures". Section 7343 17 states: 18 Section 7343. Definition of term "person."

19 The term "person" as used in this chapter includes an 20 officer or employee of a corporation, or a member or employee of a partnership, who as such officer, employee or 21 member is under a duty to perform the act in respect of which the violation occurs. 22 [IRC 7343] 23 24 25 This section was previously found in Section 150, which 26 referred only to corporation tax returns. This was the original 27 intent of Congress. Thus, Section 7806 is brought to bear upon 28 the application of this section. Section 7806 States:

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 63 of 65 Sec. 7806. Construction of title. 1 2 (b) Arrangement and Classification.

3 No inference, implication, or presumption of legislative construction shall be drawn or made by reason of the 4 location or grouping of any particular section or provision 5 or portion of this title, nor shall any table of contents, table of cross references, or similar outline, analysis, or 6 descriptive matter relating to the contents of this title be given any legal effect. The preceding sentence also 7 applies to the sidenotes and ancillary tables contained in 8 the various prints of this Act before its enactment into law. 9 [IRC 7806(b)] 10

11 Thus, IRC 7203 does not apply to the Appellant, a California 12 State Citizen, because such individual Citizens are not within 13 the purview of Chapter 75. Therefore, the indictment must fail. 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 64 of 65 1 CONCLUSION 2

3 For the forgoing reasons, the Accused's conviction must be 4 reversed, with an affirmative declaration that the Accused is a 5 de jure California State Citizen, and a member of the Posterity, 6 as defined in the Preamble to the Constitution for the United 7 States of America. 8 9 Respectfully submitted with explicit reservation of all my unalienable rights 10 and without prejudice to any of my unalienable rights, 11 12 [DEFENDANT] 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Notice of Lack of Jurisdiction and Demand for Hearing to Order Proof of Jurisdiction Page 65 of 65

Load more

  65

Copy Link