Henry-Dale: Goltz

U.S.P.O. Box 690126

San Antonio, Texas

[78269-0126]

 

March 20, 2006

 

Judge W. Royal Furgeson

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

655 East Durango Blvd.

San Antonio, Texas 78206

 

Dear Judge Furgeson:

 

Subject: Civil Action SA-05-CA-01056-RF   Judicial Notice

 

Recently I was made aware that a “status conference” has been scheduled in your court in connection with the subject Civil Action SA-05-CA-01056-RF.  Of course, that raised several questions in my mind, which I believe you can answer.  I am of the belief that this matter is completed and closed.  If this is not true, please help me here: 

 

1 – Exactly, what is a “status conference”?

2 – Who called for this “status conference”?

3 – What is the purpose of this “status conference”?

4 – Who will be attending this “status conference”?

5 – Most importantly, what is your intent?

 

As you can ascertain from the court file on the subject case, I have fully complied with your ORDER.  It is Mr. Dietz (alias) that has not complied with the law by not proving his authority and jurisdiction.  Attached, you will find a short but comprehensive summary of legislative and judicial statements on the requirements to obtain jurisdiction. 

 

Your prompt response to this letter, with answers to the above questions, is appreciated.  By this letter, I formally accept your oath of office.

 

Sincerely,

 

_______________

Henry-Dale: Goltz

Aggrieved Texian American

 

Attachment: Statements Regarding Authority and Jurisdiction

Statements Regarding Authority and Jurisdiction

 

26 U.S.C. 7602(a) authorizes “the Secretary”… “To summon the person liable for tax…”.  Mr. Dietz is not “the Secretary”, nor is he delegated by “the Secretary” to exercise the authority granted to “the Secretary” in 26 U.S.C. 7602.

 

26 U.S.C. 7608(b) authorizes “Any criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division” to serve “summonses issued under the authority of the United States”.  Mr. Dietz (alias) is not a criminal investigator of the Intelligence Division.

 

In Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 381, Mr. Justice Frankfurter delivered the opinion of the Court.  “Whatever the form in which the Government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the Government takes the risk of having accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the Government stays within the bounds of his authority.”  And later, “And, this is so even though … the agent himself may have been unaware of the limitations upon his authority.”

 

In a letter (copy attached) from Mr. Henry Bonilla, MC: “Like Representative Ensign, I can find no place where it [the law] specifically states that one must pay income taxes.”

 

In State of Rhode Island v. State of Massachusetts, 37 U.S. 657, 718, regarding jurisdiction, the Court said: “However late this objection [to jurisdiction] has been made, or may be made in any cause, in an inferior or appellate court of the United States, it must be considered and decided, before any court can move one further step in the cause; as any movement is necessarily the exercise of jurisdiction.”

 

Federal Practice and Procedure (FPP) Chapter 1, §3522 contains the following entries:

 

At page 60 – Courts of limited jurisdiction – “It is a principle of first importance that the federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction.”  “The limits upon federal jurisdiction, whether imposed by the Constitution or by Congress, must be neither disregarded nor evaded.  Owen Equipment & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 1978, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 437 U.S. 365,57 L.Ed.2d 274.

 

At page 62 – “Burden of proving facts necessary to sustain jurisdiction is on the plaintiff.  Escude Cruz v. Ortho Pharmaceutical Corp., C.A. 1st, 1980, 619 F.2d 532. (Bold is mine)  [Mere statements, allegations, or attorney assessments are insufficient to sustain jurisdiction.]

 

At page 63 – “… the facts showing the existence of jurisdiction must be affirmatively alleged in the complaint.  If these facts are challenged, the burden is on the party claiming jurisdiction to demonstrate that the court has jurisdiction over the subject matter.”  (Bold is mine)

 

* * *