I found this post, and thought it should be put in this thread.
I edited it, and added links to the cases
Posted by: PJTO4 11-01-04
I FOUND THIS ARTICLE ABOUT IRS LACK OF JURISDICTION THAT MIGHT BE WORTH ANALYZING.
SEVEN ELEMENTS OF JURISDICTION
In order for any government agency, subsidiary or law to be applied to an individual American Citizen, it must be first proved or assumed that the government has jurisdiction in this matter over that particular individual for that time.
Specifically, before an individual can be charged and convicted with a crime, the government official or agency must prove jurisdiction.
This is seldom accomplished, and many individuals lose a case and even go to jail when no one has proved this legally essential issue.
No where is this more common than in Internal Revenue Service cases against so-called tax protesters.
The IRS almost never attempts to prove jurisdiction.
In fact, jurisdiction is almost never even addressed.
If the individual is correct in his/her claims that he/she is not a taxpayer as defined in the Internal Revenue Code, then the IRS HAS NO JURISDICTION!
With no jurisdiction comes no case and no conviction!
But to win, jurisdiction MUST be challenged by the individual, and if challenged successfully, the case is dismissed.
There are seven elements of jurisdiction, all of which must be proved by the prosecution if challenged.
If not challenged, it will ALWAYS be assumed by the court that competent jurisdiction is proved and accepted by all parties.
If any element of the seven is not proved, the case must be dismissed.
The normal process in a case against a so-called tax protester is to ignore the jurisdiction issue altogether, or else to challenge jurisdiction while at the same time conforming to procedures and requirements that assume jurisdiction.
In other words, one cannot allege the IRS has no jurisdiction over one while at the same time one continues to file a Form 1040 each year.
In the very few IRS cases where jurisdiction is challenged, almost always the judge will proclaim jurisdiction from the bench.
["It is the opinion of this court that the prosecution has jurisdiction in this case, and exercises it regularly, almost every day.
I don't think we need to go through all that today."]
This is a total violation of law and accepted court procedures.
But most federal judges won't let that stop them!
But the one alleging jurisdiction must prove jurisdiction if jurisdiction is challenged.
Usually the defendant charged with a crime is too intimidated or ignorant to successfully challenge a judge on this, but
the judge MUST be challenged if he/she proclaims that the prosecution (IRS) has jurisdiction in this case.
If he/she is not successfully challenged, almost always the individual will lose the case.
One of the easiest and most common means of alleging jurisdiction on the part of the prosecution (IRS) is to refer to the accused as a "taxpayer."
If that word is ever used in reference to the so-called tax protester," it MUST be immediately challenged:
["I object, your Honor.
The prosecution has just labeled me a taxpayer.
Whether or not I am a taxpayer is the very root issue in this case, and has not been proven by the prosecution.
I respectfully request that the word 'taxpayer' be stricken from the record and that the prosecution be instructed to not use that word again until it has proven that I am indeed a taxpayer."]
If the defendant does not challenge that word, and similar techniques used by the IRS, the judge will have legal justification to assume jurisdiction.
Of course, if the defense has done its job, the issue of taxpayer and jurisdiction would already be established.
The time to challenge jurisdiction is at the beginning of the trial, not at the end when it looks like the individual is about to lose.
If jurisdiction is to be successfully challenged, it must be at the very beginning of the trial.
To allow the trial to continue at all is to admit to jurisdiction.