This
motion is to be filed if the IRS pursues a motion to collect taxes or
prosecute you criminally for allegedly not obeying the federal tax laws.
IN
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF ___________________
United States,
Plaintiff
Any Citizen,
Defendant
MOTION TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF TERRITORIAL JURISDICTION
COMES NOW {Any Citizen}, the accused, who hereby demands of this
legislative tribunal and judicial assembly the dismissal of this cause
because of the lack of exclusive jurisdictional authority over the exact
geographical location where the alleged criminal activity mentioned in the
indictment took place; and hereby files this formal Motion to Dismiss for
Lack of Territorial Jurisdiction.
A recent Supreme Court decision, decided April 26, 1995, addresses the
issues of exclusive legislative jurisdiction of the Congress, the powers
of the Federal government, and the subsequent subject matter of a Federal
District Court. Supreme Court Justice Thomas in the concurring majority
opinion in the case of United States v. Lopez, No. 93-1260, 115 S. Ct.
1624, 131 L. Ed. 2d 626, states very clearly:
“Indeed, on
this crucial point, the majority and Justice Breyer [the Justice writing
the dissenting opinion] agree in principle: the Federal Government has
nothing approaching a police power.” (pg 64.)
Then Justice Thomas went on to discuss “a regulation of
police” (pg. 86), wherein he stated:
“United
States v. Dewitt, 76 US 41 9 Wall 4, 19 L. Ed 593 (870), marked the first
time the court struck down as exceeding the power conveyed by the commerce
clause. In a 2 page opinion, the court invalidated a nation-wide law
prohibiting all sales of naphtha, and illuminating oils. In so doing, the
court remarked that the commerce clause has always been understood as
limited by its terms; and as a virtual denial of any power to interfere
with the internal trade and business of the separate states.”
Further support for this understanding is readily
available from the courts:
“Special
provision is made in the Constitution for the cession of jurisdiction from
the states over places where the federal government shall establish forts
or other military works. And it is only in these places, or in territories
of the United States, where it can exercise a general jurisdiction” [New
Orleans v. United States, 35 U.S. (10 Pet.) 662 (1836)]
“All
legislation is prima facie territorial”
[American Banana Co. v. U.S. Fruit, 213, U.S. 347 at 357-358]
“There is a
canon of legislative construction which teaches Congress that, unless a
contrary intent appears [legislation] is meant to apply only within
territorial jurisdiction of the United States.”
[U.S. v. Spelar, 338 U.S. 217 at 222]
“the United
States never held any municipal sovereignty, jurisdiction, or right of
soil in Alabama or any of the new states which were formed ... The United
States has no Constitutional capacity to exercise municipal jurisdiction,
sovereignty or eminent domain, within the limits of a state or elsewhere,
except in the cases in which it is expressly granted ...”
[Pollard v. Hagan, 44 U.S.C. 213, 221, 223]
“... the
states are separate sovereigns with respect to the federal government”
[Heath v. Alabama, 474 U.S. 187]
“No
sanction can be imposed absent proof of jurisdiction” [Stanard v. Olesen,
74 S. Ct.768]
“Once
challenged, jurisdiction cannot be ‘assumed’, it must be proved to
exist.” [Stuck v. Medical Examiners, 94 Ca2d 751.211 P2s 389]
“Jurisdiction,
once challenged, cannot be assumed and must be decided.”
[Maine v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 250]
“...
Federal jurisdiction cannot be assumed, but must be clearly shown.”
[Brooks v. Yawkey, 200 F. 2d 633]
“The law
requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the
administrative agency and all administrative proceedings”
[Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533]
“If
any tribunal finds absence of proof of jurisdiction over person and
subject matter, the case must be dismissed.”
[Louisville R.R. v. Motley, 211 U.S. 149, 29 S. Ct. 42]
Other cases also such as McNutt v. G.M., 56
S. Ct. 789,80 L. Ed. 1135, Griffin v. Mathews, 310 Supp. 341, 423 F. 2d
272, Basso v. U.P.L., 495 F 2d. 906, Thomson v. Gaskiel, 62 S. Ct. 673, 83
L. Ed. 111, and Albrecht v U.S., 273 U.S. 1, also all confirm, that, when
challenged, jurisdiction must be documented, shown, and proven, to
lawfully exist before a cause may lawfully proceed in the courts..
Title 18 U.S.C. § 7 specifies that the “territorial jurisdiction” of
the United States extends only outside the boundaries of lands belonging
to any of the 50 states, and Title 40 U.S.C. § 255 specifies the legal
conditions that must be fulfilled for the United States government to have
exclusive or shared jurisdiction within the area of lands belonging to the
States of the Union.
THEREFORE, the accused would demand of this court to establish the
required exclusive Federal jurisdiction that has been merely assumed in
this matter, consisting of:
1. Documentation showing ownership of each and every geographical location
mentioned in the instant indictment wherein the alleged criminal activity
took place.
2. Documentation from the legislature of the Commonwealth of Virginia
surrendering jurisdiction to the Federal government over the same
geographical location as in #1.
3. Documentation pursuant to Title 40 U.S.C. § 255, wherein the United
States accepted jurisdiction to the same geographical location as
specified in #1, OR, documentation showing concurrent jurisdiction with
the Commonwealth of Virginia over the geographical location in #1;
OR,
absent the production of such required documentation showing lawful
Federal jurisdiction over this geographical location, dismiss the action
entirely, immediately.
Respectfully submitted this ____ day of ________________, 19____.
______________________________
Printed Name
Address