Below are the seven issues of jurisdiction in any and every court case.
Remember,
if any one of these seven are not proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the case cannot continue.
1. The accused must be properly identified; identified in such a fashion there is no room for mistaken identity.
The individual must be singled out from all others; otherwise, anyone could be subject to arrest and trial without benefit of "wrong party" defense.
Almost always the means of identification is a person's proper name, BUT, any means of identification is equally valid if said means differentiates the accused without doubt.
(By the way, there is no constitutionally valid requirement that you must identify yourself to the judge or to anyone.)
For stop and identify issues (4th Amendment) see Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47
http://www.justia.us/us/443/47/case.html
and
Kolender v Lawson, 461 US 352.
http://www.justia.us/us/461/352/case.html
2.
The statute of offense must be identified by its proper or common name.
A number is insufficient.
Today, a citizen may stand in jeopardy of criminal sanctions for alleged violation of statutes, regulations, or even low-level bureaucratic orders (example: Colorado National Monument Superintentdent's Orders regarding an unleashed dog, or a dog defecating on a trail).
If a number were to be deemed sufficient, government could bring new and different charges at any time by alleging clerical error.
("I'm sorry, your Honor.
I assumed that the regulation indicated by that number was a legitimate statute.
My secretary must have made an error.")
For any act to be triable as an offense, it must be declared to be a crime.
Charges must negate any exception forming part of the statutory definition of an offense, by affirmative non-applicability.
In other words, any charge must affirmatively negate any exception found in the law.
Example of exception from a case where someone was on trial for Section 7203, Wilfull Failure to File(a Form 1040):
"... thereof to make a return (other than a return required under authority of 6015)...
Indictment or information is defective unless every fact which is an element in a prima facie case of guilt is stated.
The assumption of an element is not lawful.
Otherwise, the accused will not be thoroughly informed.
26 USC 6012 is a necessary element of the offense.
Since 6012 isn't cited, the information is fatally defective.
Additionally, the information did not negate the exception (other than required under authority of section 6015)."
After reading 6012 and 6015, and knowing that the essential section 7203 elements are:
A. Required to perform.
B. Failed to perform.
C. Failure was willful you may wish to ask:
"how often is a valid Section 7203 indictment or other information or indictment brought?
Very seldom.
How many citizens have been convicted on a fatally defective process?
Perhaps thousands,
all with the knowing or willing participation of a federal judge.
It is the judge's job to assure that justice is accomplished.
But the judge will almost always stop short of doing his/her job and wait until the defense takes the important steps.
The fact that most defense attorneys don't know how to fight a case against the IRS doesn't seem to matter to the judges.
Nor does it seem to matter to the judge.
3. The acts of alleged offense must be described in non- prejudicial language and detail so as to enable a person of average intelligence to understand nature of charge (to enable preparation of defense); the actual act or acts constituting the offense complained of.
The charge must not be described by parroting the statute; not by the language of same.
The naming of the acts of the offense describe a specific offense whereas the verbiage of a statute describes only a general class of offense.
Facts must be stated.
Conclusions cannot be considered in the determination of probable cause.
4.
The accuser must be named.
He may be an officer or a third party.
Some positively identifiable person (human being) must accuse.
Some certain person must take responsibility for the making of the accusation, not an agency or an institution.
This is the only valid means by which a citizen may begin to face his accuser.
Also, the injured party (corpus delicti) must make the accusation.
Hearsay evidence may not be provided.
Anyone else testifying that he heard that another party was injured does not qualify as direct evidence.
5. The accusation must be made under penalty of perjury.
If perjury cannot reach the accuser, there is no accusation.
Otherwise, anyone may accuse another falsely without risk.
6. To comply with the five elements above, that is for the accusation to be valid, the accused must be accorded due process.
Accuser must have complied with law, procedure and form in bringing the charge.
This includes court-determined probable cause, summons and notice procedure.
If lawful process may be abrogated in placing a citizen in jeopardy, then any means may be utilized to deprive a man of his freedom.
All political dissent may be stifled by utilization of defective process.
7. The court must be one of competent jurisdiction.
To have valid process, the tribunal must be a creature of its constitution, in accord with the law of its creation, i.e. (article III judge).
Without the limiting factor of a court of competent jurisdiction, all citizens would be in jeopardy of loss of liberty being imposed at any bureaucrat's whim.
It is conceivable that the procedure could devolve to one in which the accuser, the trier of facts, and the executioner would all be one and the same.
The first six elements above deal primarily with the issue of personal jurisdiction.
The seventh element (also element #2) addresses subject matter and territorial jurisdiction.
Subject matter jurisdiction is conferred by acts controlled by law;
territorial jurisdiction attaches by venue of the parties in relation to the court and to any trans- jurisdictional acts and/or activities of the parties
(extended territorial jurisdiction is conferred by controversial long-arm statutes).