- 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 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011