Chapter 10. Jurisdiction of Federal Courts

1 0 0
                                    

Judge Grumpy only quoting lower federal court cases in his decision was done in error. He failed to site Florida Law which was supported by Florida Supreme Court cases, and to Note he failed to cite ANY LAWS for that matter!!! One would think that state Judges would know the very limited authority federal courts have over private citizens in the 50 states of the union (me), and that these lower federal court rulings have no effect over me what so ever. This chapter is what the author found on federal courts jurisdiction in the states of the union.

NOTE: Judge Grumpy quoting federal court cases and asserting that these cases have jurisdiction over Petitioner and applies to Petitioner outside of the federal zone was done in error. Remember, however, that the Supreme Court has never ruled in this manner on such issues, and if so Judge Grumpy would have been able to cite as precedent in this case, and that even the IRS' own Internal Revenue Manual in section 4.10.7.2.9.8 says that cases below the Supreme Court (such as the one's Judge Grumpy cites) do not apply generally to all citizens of the 50 States of the Union, but only to the single taxpayer litigating the case.

IRM, 4.10.7.2.9.8 (01/01/06): Importance of Court Decision

"Decisions made at various levels of the court system are considered to be interpretations of tax laws and may be used by either examiners or taxpayers to support a position.

Certain court cases lend more weight to a position than others. A case decided by the U.S. Supreme Court becomes the law of the land and takes precedence over decisions of lower courts. The Internal Revenue Service must follow Supreme Court decisions. For examiners, Supreme Court decisions have the same weight as the Code.

Decisions made by lower courts, such as Tax Court, District Courts, or Claims Court, are binding on the Service only for the particular taxpayer and the years litigated. Adverse decisions of lower courts do not require the Service to alter its position for other taxpayers."


Therefore, the cases Judge Grumpy cited in this case of Social Security & Medicare/ Income taxes, cannot and should not be cited as a precedent by Judge Grumpy. Judge Grumpy did it anyway in Petitioners case because of his Bias & Prejudice towards Petitioner. This was an illegal judgment because of its lack of specificity in law and lack of any evidence of jurisdiction of these federal court cases quoted by Judge Grumpy in the ruling.

The Federal Government, the United States, does not have jurisdiction or authority over natural, citizens of the 50 States of the Union. Federal court cases decisions cannot be quoted in Petitioners case. Petitioner will show some proof of this FACT!!!

First, Look at the Criminal Code of the United States government:

1. Federal Crimes:

TITLE 18 > PART III > CHAPTER 301 > Sec. 4001.
Sec. 4001. - Limitation on detention; control of prisons

(a) No citizen shall be imprisoned or otherwise detained by the United States except pursuant to an Act of Congress.

Building on this theme, we now add a corroborating citation from the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 26, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules, paragraph 2, in the middle,

"On the other hand since all Federal crimes are statutory [ see United States v. Hudson, 11 U.S. 32, 3 L.ed. 259 (1812)] and all criminal prosecutions in the Federal courts are based on acts of Congress, . . ."

2. Territorial Jurisdiction:

In order to define the jurisdiction of the Federal courts to conduct criminal prosecutions, one would have to find out what the specific definition of "Act of Congress," is. We find such a definition in Rule 54(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure prior to Dec. 2002, wherein is defined "Act of Congress." Rule 54(c) states:

The Fight Against Tyranny and Slavery in AmericaWhere stories live. Discover now