|You Cannot Obtain Declaratory Judgments in Federal Income Tax Trials Held In Federal Courts!|
Your wonderful Congress legislated away your right to obtain a Declaratory judgment in a federal income tax trial. A declaratory judgment is one where there are no disputes over fact and the only relief sought is a declaration of status or rights of the plaintiff under law. No jury trial occurs and the court (judge) makes the declaration of status or right by motion and without a trial. An example might be a declaration of your status by the court as a nonresident alien, a person not liable for federal income tax, etc.
Congress knows that people don't like to pay taxes and that they will be likely to litigate to protect their Constitutional rights, so they put a statutory roadblock in front of patriots who use Constitutional rights to avoid paying taxes and who want to litigate to get a declaratory judgment identifying them as persons not liable for income taxes. This roadblock guarantees that those who don’t know what they are doing will lose in federal court, especially in cases where issues of status as a nonresident alien or personal liability for tax are asserted. That roadblock is 28 U.S.C. §2201 as follows, and it prevents federal courts from declaring the rights or status of a plaintiff to remedy a wrong related to taxes or illegal taking of taxes by the federal government in a federal court:
What this means is that a federal court can't issue a declaratory judgment relating to federal taxes or declare your rights or status (e.g. the Bill of Rights, and the first ten Amendments to the U.S. Constitution) or the status of its own jurisdiction to hear your case with respect to federal income taxes. So in other words, declaratory judgments based on lack of jurisdiction or based on citizenship or assertion of constitutional rights cannot be decided in federal court solely by a judge! Such cases must be heard in state court or a common law court!
When you think about this statute, it actually makes sense. The statute doesn’t allow a federal judge to solely decide rights or jurisdiction or citizenship status on a federal income issue because it would present a conflict of interest that would not serve the interests of justice. Why? Because the judge’s paycheck comes from the matter he is deciding on. Do you think he is going to rule in favor of the Citizen by saying he doesn’t have to pay income taxes? The Congress therefore required an outside entity, such as a state court, to decide on issues of status. Don’t be discouraged by the above, however. There is a way around this statutory trap. Below is the way around the roadblock:
While income tax arguments are barred under this rule - actions proving lack of citizenship, domicile, and residence are specifically allowed. The issue is not income tax but jurisdiction over the person. Lack of jurisdiction is proved by FRCP Rule 44 and 44.1 - You go to the proper jurisdiction to resolve the matter by taking the following steps:
1. Acquire domicile and residence in a common law jurisdiction.
2. File notice in the clerks office in state and federal courts.
3. Argue this in Federal court using as evidence the filings filed at common law, state court and federal courts.
4. Appeal at common law under FRCP Rule 60 last line "by independent action".
You are then not arguing jurisdiction in front of that court - you are using evidence to prove that jurisdiction already exists in another court. Read 28 USC 2201 and it states that it must be argued in the proper manner - and that is by not letting the federal US court decide that issue - go to common law and plead condition precedent under FRCP rule 8.(The citizenship was already decided before the action began).
This argument is in agreement with all of the cites herein and the argument that dual citizenship can exist. State law tells you the procedure for noticing the state courts that you have acquired a new residence and domicile.