-against- ) No. SA-06-CA-0503-XR
Henry-Dale Goltz )
COMES NOW Defendants-in-error, Henry-Dale Goltz and Evangelina Goltz (Goltzes), Sovereign American Citizens by reason of Alienage and Domicile, which Domicile is located within the confines of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely and exclusively by the republic of Texas, being one of the fifty (50) independent republics that together and combined form the Federal-Republic known and referenced most commonly as The United States of America, and moves this Honorable Court, mindful of its Constitutional Duties and Obligations owed to Sovereign American Citizens, and on the basis of its Presiding Officer and all attending Officers of the Court, constantly and continuously aware of their sworn Oaths of Office, in any and all proceedings before this Honorable Court and specifically recent Motions filed in this Court in the instant case, to acknowledge that said Court, because it lacks appropriate and proper geographic jurisdiction, and by being made barren of the necessary geographic jurisdiction, it matters not whether said Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction and/or personal jurisdiction, for without geographic jurisdictional authority, the Court cannot proceed to hear the merits of this case and render binding and enforceable judgments, which define and declare the rights and duties of the parties involved in this case.
I – LACK OF GEOGRAPHIC (TERRITORIAL) JURISDICTION
The lack of geographic (territorial) jurisdiction is made evident by the following facts:
have in our political system a Government of the
So, the Supreme Court, which is the Court of last resort within the Federal- Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch, stated that each of the two Governmental Entities that operate and function within The Federal-Republic, possess separate and distinct geographic legislative jurisdictions. Since there are two separate Governmental Entities that operate and function at the same time within the geographic jurisdiction possessed by The Federal-Republic, (The United States) the geographic jurisdiction possessed by The Federal-Republic is divided, by the contract, The Constitution, into two separate and independent geographic jurisdictions.
“In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting territory belonging to the United States, Congress [under the authority contained at Article I, Section #8, Clause #17 and Article IV, Section #3, Clause #2] is not subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for [in behalf of] the [Fifty, (50) Independent] states.”
"Sovereign-Citizens" are those “Citizens” who are born within and reside within the confines, of the defined, geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely, and exclusively, and respectively by the Fifty (50) Independent Republics, which Independent Republics together and combined form The Federal-Republic, which Federal-Republic is referenced most commonly as The United States of America. “Sovereign-Citizens” are made “Sovereign” by the fact that they are Created Equal by The Creator of All Things, The Master of the Universe, The Supreme Sovereign, and are equally “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”. By possessing these “endowed unalienable rights”, “Sovereign-Citizens” are made to be The Masters Of Their Own Individual Destinies, and on that basis can declare that they are the best judge of their own interests. Thus, each “Sovereign-Citizen” is made to be equally “Sovereign” over their existence on Planet Earth with all other “Sovereign-Citizens”. Of course, “Sovereign Citizens” possess the “right” to exercise sovereignty in a limited way, since they are forbidden to exercise the sovereignty that they possess in a way which will result in adversely affecting the equal right of other “Sovereign Citizens” to exercise their right to exercise sovereignty. “Sovereign-Citizens” possess the right to contract with each other for the purpose of protecting, insuring, preserving, and securing their “endowed unalienable rights” from being compromised, victimized, abridged, circumvented, limited, encroached, usurped, or destroyed by the acts, actions, and/or activities of would be predators, pillagers, and/or plunderers. For this purpose, “Sovereign-Citizens” exercised their “sovereignty” when they manufactured and established “Governments”. “Sovereign-Citizens” manufactured Governments in order for such to exercise sovereignty for the sole purpose of protecting, insuring, preserving, and securing the “Sovereign-Citizens” “endowed unalienable rights”. (Source of data: The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.)
Citizens", on the other hand,
are those “citizens” who were, or are, born within and/or who are domiciled and
residing within the confines, of the defined geographic, legislative
jurisdictions possessed by The Federal-Republic's Central Government – the United States. “U. S. Citizens” are not protected by the
mandates, requirements, demands, constraints, restraints, and prohibitions of
the contract, The Constitution,
because they are located within a geographic jurisdiction wherein the Congress is declared to be “Sovereign” by
the contract, The Constitution. In this environment, “
Therefore, in the light of what has been enumerated and enunciated herein, it is conclusive that all legislative authority and authorizations possessed by the Congress is made limited by the fact that such authority and authorizations only possess applicability and enforcement qualities within the confines, of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely, and exclusively by The Federal-Republic's Central Government – the United States. Also, the legislative authority of the Congress is made limited by the Constitution’s constraints, restraints, limitations, prohibitions, mandates, and requirements. And, it is equally true that such legislative authority possessed by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States is made limited by the fact that within The Federal-Republic exists fifty (50) independent Republics wherein, fifty Governments exist, and ,wherein, each of the fifty independent Republic's Governments possess the sole, and exclusive authority to exercise sovereignty in behalf of their respective benefactors within the confines, of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely, and exclusively, and respectively, by each of the fifty (50) Republics.
Furthermore, since the Congress does not possess the authority to proceed by legislation to enhance, or to enlarge, or to expand, or to broaden, or to increase the geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States, it follows that such statutes, codified as 26 U.S.C. 7402 and 26 U.S.C. 7403, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, and 28 U.S.C. 1340 and 28 U.S.C. 1345, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1396, may only have applicability and enforcement qualities within the confines of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely and exclusively by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States.
This being the case, if any public official, employed by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States, and functioning and operating within his office under a Sworn Oath of Office, proceeds to attempt to enforce any of the statutes provided by the Congress, in geographic land areas wherein The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States – does not possess either geographic or territorial, legislative jurisdictions, is guilty of committing an ultra vires act. An ultra vires act is an act “beyond the scope of the powers of a corporation, as defined by its charter …. The term has broad application and includes not only acts prohibited by the charter, but acts which are in excess of powers granted and not prohibited.” [Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition] The commission of an ultra vires act by a public servant, who is employed by sworn oath, is considered to be a violation of the Oath of Office, which violation is an act of Treason. As used here the definition of “Treason” is “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance …” [Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition]
II – The COURT’S LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND
PERSONAL JURISDICTIONS IN CASE NUMBER SA-06-CA-0503-XR.
Federal-Republic’s Central Government's Judicial Branch's Inferior Courts, referenced as "District Courts of the
the Congress proceeded to divide The
Federal-Republic into Districts and provided Inferior Courts referenced most commonly as “District
Courts of the
In addition, the Congress provides for the manufacture and establishment of Article I Courts. An Article I Court exists for the sole purpose of carrying out the Legislative Authority that the contract, The Constitution, has delegated to the Congress. Therefore, Article I Courts’ decisions and rulings only apply for enforcement within the confines, of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by The Federal-Republic's Central Government.
Constitution provides for “District Courts of the
It is a fact that the jurisdictions provided by the Congress, to the Judicial Branch's Article III Inferior Courts and to the Legislative Branch's Article I Inferior Courts is obviously the jurisdictions that the Congress possesses. Since Constitutionally, the confined, as defined, geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely and exclusively by The Federal-Republic's Central Government is made to be limited, the Congress is prohibited to proceed to provide legislation on its own authority to enlarge such geographic, legislative jurisdictions. Therefore, such legislation that is provided by the Congress is limited to the confined, as defined, geographic legislative jurisdictions which are possessed by The Federal-Republic's Central Government. With the exception of the Article III Supreme Court, the jurisdictions made available to the Article III Inferior Courts by the Congress therefore, like the jurisdictional authority possessed by the Congress, being made to be limited, so it follows, that the Judicial jurisdictional authority is made to be likewise limited.
Therefore; the merits of this case are not within the geographic jurisdiction possessed by this Honorable Court.
A Legislation manufactured by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislative Branch (Congress) is limited by the Constitution to the confined, as defined geographic legislative jurisdiction possessed solely, and exclusively by The Federal-Republic's Central Government – the United States.
C. The United States, represented by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and this Court, lacks personal jurisdiction because without geographic (territorial) jurisdiction, there can be no personal jurisdiction.
D. The United States, represented by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and this Court, lacks subject matter Jurisdiction because without geographic (territorial) jurisdiction, there can be no subject matter jurisdiction.
FOR THESE REASONS, and Others previously stated, the Goltzes move this honorable court to deny Plaintiff’s requests and, as a matter of law, issue an ORDER for Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff for failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted.
FURTHER, since there are no valid, legal assessments, based on a return, in existence and since “Notices of Levy” and “Notices of Lien” do not have any legal force and effect, except as to intimidate and imply that some action on the part of the recipient is required, the Goltzes MOVE this honorable court to enter such ORDERS as necessary to correct prior injustices as follows:
1. ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to refund to the Goltzes with interest those withheld, but un-assessed, funds shown on Form 1040 tax returns as follows: for 1999 - US$9,191.43, for 2000 - US$205.08, for 2003 - US$2,071.90, for 2004 - US$2,016.86, and for 2005 - US$3,028.70. Funds which are not the subject of a valid, legal assessment cannot be collected. [26 USC 6201(a) and 26 USC 6501(a)];
2. ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to rescind, repeal, cancel, and annul all “Notices of Levy” issued by the Internal Revenue Service since 1 January 2000, including those recently sent to LUCENT PENSION SERVICE CENTER, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC, CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, FIRST FIDELITY BANK NA, FROST NATIONAL BANK, WACHOVIA BANK N.A., SECURITY SERVICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION. Since several of these institutions have little or no relationship with the Goltzes, and only served to discredit our name and reputation;
3. ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to return to the Goltzes all funds, with interest, coerced by intimidation from banking and financial institutions and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to the Internal Revenue Service in their mistaken response to bogus “Notices of Levy” received by them with no valid, lawful basis, court order, or permission from the Goltzes to transfer their funds to the Internal Revenue Service [Frost Bank: US$3,150.93, Security Service Federal Credit Union: US$31.91, SSA: US$ TBD];
4. ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to return to the Goltzes all funds coerced by intimidation from, and mistakenly sent by, RMH, Inc. in response to an unlawful and continuing “Notice of Levy” on the property of Evangelina Salinas Goltz during 2004 and 2005, with no valid, lawful basis, court order, or permission from her for the transfer of her funds to the Internal Revenue Service;
5. ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to rescind, repeal, cancel, and annul, in writing with an affirmed copy to the Goltzes, all “Notices of Lien” unlawfully issued by the Internal Revenue Service since 1 January 2000 including those referring to “REAL PROPERTY” or “PERSONAL PROPERTY” and recorded in the public records of the County Clerk of BEXAR COUNTY, TX 78205 in violation of Fed. Tax Lien Reg. Act;
6. ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to rescind, repeal, cancel, and annul, in writing with an affirmed copy to the Goltzes, all the so-called debts, taxes, penalties, statutory interest, and additions that they allege in their complaint;
7. ORDER the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting all future actions against the Goltzes by the Internal Revenue Service and its agents, including the U. S. Department of Justice, as regarding the so-called income tax, except in the rare situation where the Goltzes receive income, which is defined in numerous United States Supreme Court cases [Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 US 399; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 US 179; Southern Pacific v. Lowe, 247 US 330; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189; Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 US at page 517; Clark v. U. S., 211 F.2d 100] as gain from corporate activity or from wages as a U.S. Government employee; and
8. ORDER that the Goltzes have such further relief as this honorable court may deem just and proper, including its costs herein, for the persistent and groundless oppression, lawless behavior, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power exercised by the Internal Revenue Service and its agent, the U. S. Department of Justice in violation of the Constitution, law, codes, rules, and regulations since 1 January 2000.
By My Hand: By My Hand:
Henry-Dale Goltz (pro per) Evangelina-Salinas Goltz (pro per)
Affidavit of Truth
We, Henry Dale Goltz and Evangelina Salinas Goltz, do solemnly affirm that the Pleading attached hereto is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.
So help us, God.
Affirmed by: _________________________ Affirmed by: ________________________
Henry-Dale; Goltz Evangelina Salinas; Goltz
Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of November 2006.
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OR AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
certify that on this 13th day of November, 2006 A.D.,
a true and exact copy of the aforesaid Motion was sent, first class postage
Michelle C. Johns
Attorney, Tax Division
Dept of Justice
Attorney of record for Plaintiff
All Rights Reserved
Henry-Dale Goltz, Sovereign American Citizen