name mispelled on indictment?

[russia with love]

how can the subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged?

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by russia with love

how can the subject matter jurisdiction can be challenged?

I discovered how easy it had become to rip any federal indictment into manifold shreds of
paper, without even reading to the second page.

Beginning at the top, we usually find one or more U.S. ATTORNeys
listed as having power(s) of ATTORNey to represent the UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA (spelled in CAPITAL LETTERS, per force). But,
Title 28 of the U.S. Code does not authorize U.S. ATTORNeys to
represent the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, but only the United
States. Count one: misrepresentation.

To "ATTORN" is to supervise the transfer of an estate from the
old lord to the new lord; it is a term from feudal law. Isn't
it interesting how closely the terms "feudal" and "federal" do
sound, when juxtaposed right next to each other? The long chain
of coincidences does not stop here. Keep reading!

Further on down the first page of any federal indictment, we then
find that all criminal prosecutions are commenced in the United
States District Court ("USDC"). Unfortunately, the USDC has no
criminal jurisdiction whatsoever. This has now been proven by
the utter and demonstrable silence by the Department of Justice
to several Freedom of Information Act ("FOIA") requests for the
statute(s), if any, which grant the USDC original jurisdiction
over criminal prosecutions. There is none. Count two:
deprivation of due process.

Reaching the so-called real parties of interest now, these bogus
criminal actions [sic] invariably show the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA as the moving Party, but the Congress of the United
States has never granted legal standing to the UNITED STATES OF
AMERICA to sue, or be sued, in the USDC. It is true that the
United States has been granted standing to sue, or be sued, in
the USDC, but the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, and the United States
[sic], are not one and the same. This you should have learned
way back in law school but, alas, they did not teach these things
in law schools way back when you were a student; they still
don't teach these things in law schools. Count three: fraud.

The names of criminal defendants are likewise always spelled in
ALL CAPITAL LETTERS, which has now been nailed for invoking a
subtle, unconstitutional, yes, even criminal subterfuge whereby
martial rule is impressed upon the People of America, in blatant
violation of the prohibition against treason. Evidently, I need
to remind you that one of the penalties for treason is death.
But, you already know these things, correct? Count four:
treason (a capital offense).

Very rarely, however, do litigants think to challenge the
legality of the body which issued these bogus indictments in the
first place. You probably do not know how many times this has
already been done -- properly, timely, lawfully, and correctly --
because an active conspiracy is afoot, within the Department of
Just US, to obstruct any and all pleadings which nail the federal
Jury Selection and Service Act for blatant, unconstitutional
discrimination against Citizens of the several states. Quite
simply, those who are qualified to make law in America are,
nevertheless, prevented from serving on grand and petit juries,
or from voting in general elections. Those who can serve on
grand and petit juries, or vote in general elections, are
prevented by Law from serving in any federal elected offices.
Doesn't this strike you as strange? Count five: conspiracy.

All federal judges are also paying income taxes on their judicial
compensation, in blatant violation of the prohibition against
same which is found in Article III. This prohibition was upheld
in the magnificent opinion of the Supreme Court in Evans v. Gore
in 1920. Lately, however, our august Chief Justice has
confirmed, in front of a graduate class in the Law School of the
University of Arizona, that "there has been a change in
doctrine." But, in a rare moment of sanity, one of your own
colleagues proved, in Lord v. Kelley, that the IRS exerts undue
influence on every judge who is also a taxpayer. Go figure!
Count six: extortion (NOT a change in doctrine!)

Delving even deeper into this putrid swamp of self-serving
traitors, we find that the IRS is also bribing federal
prosecutors to the tune of $25,000 for each indictment which they
obtain from federal grand juries, against the President's
political enemies. Would you have us believe that federal judges
have remained completely above this criminal practice? Perhaps
you do need to be reminded here, lest you conveniently forget,
that Congress abolished the Performance Management and
Recognition System in 1993, whereas the Anti-Kickback Act of 1986
remains on the books (see Title 41, U.S.C., sections 51 et seq.).
When was the last time you completed the financial disclosure
which is required of you by the Ethics in Government Act of 1978?
Count seven: bribery.

http://www.supremelaw.org/letters/matsch.htm

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

All federal judges are also paying income taxes on their judicial compensation, in blatant violation of the prohibition against same which is found in Article III.

Not so. Art. III, sec 1, says that judges will "receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." In other words, their pay cannot be reduced, to guard against any sort of threat to cut their pay by the govt.

Now "during their continuance in office" means pretty much no downward changes in their pay after they take office, but it also means that Congress could cut judicial salaries for judges not yet in office while having to leave the judges already in office alone.

In the Evans v. Gore case, there was a question of applying the income tax to judges who were already in office when the federal income tax was instituted. There have been similar suits when Social Security payroll deductions were introduced, and when there were other new payroll taxes or increases in the tax rates.

As it now stands, after much fine tuning, the legal authority is that any new tax or payroll deduction that is applied to everyone else can also be applied to judges. But any new tax that applies to only a special portion of the populace, such as a special professional tax imposed on lawyers, cannot be applied to current judges although it may be applied to judges not already in office. It's easy to imagine how this creates certain difficulties in the payroll offices of the court system.


As for your other contentions, most of these have been rejected by courts (such as the business about names in all-caps). Your claim that the District Courts do not have jurisdiction -- based entirely on the fact that you made an improper FOIA request -- is refuted by 18 USC 3231; a fact so easily found that I suspect the candor and accuracy of the rest of your essay.

[Dillon Hunt]

Originally Posted by Shoonra

Not so. Art. III, sec 1, says that judges will "receive for their services a compensation, which shall not be diminished during their continuance in office." In other words, their pay cannot be reduced, to guard against any sort of threat to cut their pay by the govt.

It's about an Independent Juduciary, not paycuts.

As for your other contentions, most of these have been rejected by courts (such as the business about names in all-caps). Your claim that the District Courts do not have jurisdiction -- based entirely on the fact that you made an improper FOIA request -- is refuted by 18 USC 3231; a fact so easily found that I suspect the candor and accuracy of the rest of your essay.

The U.S. District Court and District Court of the U.S. are not the same. (word of art)

Also§ 3002 of Definitions Title 28;

.
(2) “Court” means any court created by the Congress of the United States, excluding the United States Tax Court.

I wonder if the Tax Court of United States is a Court of the United States.

Humbly, JS

[Shoonra]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

I wonder if the Tax Court of United States is a Court of the United States.

The US Tax Court is undoubtedly a federal court but usually the expression "Court of the United States" is reserved for Article III courts, whose judges have lifetime appointments and whose jurisdiction is general. Article I courts, which include the Tax Court, the Federal Claims Court, the Veterans Claims Court, the Court of International Trade and maybe one or two more, have limited jurisdiction (specific to a particular topic or the processes of a particular law) and their judges are appointed for limited terms; such courts, although certainly federal, are not commonly intended by the expression "Court of the United States".

With specific reference to 28 USC 3002, this is the definition specified for the chapter dealing with Debt Collection. The Tax Court has plenty of activity under this heading, the other Article I courts do not, but this chapter is intended for the Article III courts (whose procedures and jurisdiction is different from the Tax Court) so the definition excludes the Tax Court from the provisions of this chapter dealing with Debt Collection.

[KarenM]

Originally Posted by 26USC7441

There is hereby established, under article I of the Constitution of the United States, a court of record to be known as the United States Tax Court. The members of the Tax Court shall be the chief judge and the judges of the Tax Court.

For the specific legislation which established the Tax Court, see:

Aug. 16, 1954, ch. 736, 68A Stat. 879;

Pub. L. 91-172, title IX, Sec. 951, Dec. 30, 1969, 83 Stat. 730.

[mertensv16]

Originally Posted by Dillon Hunt

All federal judges are also paying income taxes on their judicial compensation, in blatant violation of the prohibition against same which is found in Article III. This prohibition was upheld in the magnificent opinion of the Supreme Court in Evans v. Gore in 1920. Lately, however, our august Chief Justice has confirmed, in front of a graduate class in the Law School of the University of Arizona, that "there has been a change in doctrine."

The Evans case was overruled in 1939. See O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).

[indio007]

Originally Posted by mertensv16

The Evans case was overruled in 1939. See O'Malley v. Woodrough, 307 U.S. 277 (1939).

Of course it was overturned.

1920 = lawful money
1939 = legal tender

[mertensv16]

What a hopeless non sequitur.

[Shoonra]

The Tax Court, established in 1942 as an Article I court, replaced the Board of Tax Appeals, which was an administrative tribunal within the IRS.

see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Tax_Court