- 12 - The motion “denies the existence of any contracts or commercial agreements which create an attachment of an equity relationship between the ‘United States’ and/or The State of Texas and Petitioner.” The motion also states: “Petitioner has specifically forfeited, waived, rejected, declined, and refused to voluntarily accept any and all benefits, especially admiralty and limited debt liability benefits, from the ‘United States’ and its instrumentalities.” Apparently on those bases, the motion then states: “Petitioner hereby gives formal notice to the Court of Petitioner’s status as a nonjuristic person, a Texas state Citizen, and that, in such status, Petitioner squarely challenges and voids the jurisdiction of this Court.” Petitioners claimed in the motion that we lack “in personam” jurisdiction and subject matter jurisdiction. We denied the motion. Motion To Dismiss On November 23, 2001, petitioners submitted a motion styled “Petitioner’s Notice of Withdrawal of Petition”, which we filed as a motion to dismiss (the motion to dismiss) and denied.8 In that motion, petitioners reiterated their claim that we lack jurisdiction and stated that they wished to withdraw their 8 To the extent petitioners were relying on grounds other than jurisdiction, a decision dismissing the proceedings would have been considered a decision sustaining the deficiencies determined by respondent. See sec. 7459(d). Since we did not believe that was the result petitioners intended, we denied the motion to dismiss.Page: Previous 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011