Ron Paul on cutting taxes.
(media.greatawakening.win)
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (39)
sorted by:
Further, Internal Revenue Service personnel have venue standing and subject matter jurisdiction solely within internal revenue districts of the United States established in compliance with requirements of 26 U.S.C. § 7621 and Executive Order #10289, as amended (See also, 26 U.S.C. § 7601 and 26 CFR § 601.101). The Secretary of the Treasury has never established internal revenue districts of the United States within States of the Union.
.
"The United States District Court is not a true United States Court, established under Article 3 of the Constitution to administer the judicial power of the United States therein conveyed. It is created by virtue of the sovereign congressional faculty, granted under Article 4, 3, of that instrument, of making all needful rules and regulations respecting the territory belonging to the United States. The resemblance of its jurisdiction to that of true United States courts, in offering an opportunity to nonresidents of resorting to a tribunal not subject to local influence, does not change its character as a mere territorial court."
Albrecht v. U.S. Balzac v. People of Puerto Rico, 258 U.S. 298 (1922)
.
.
"The term 'District Courts of the United States' as used in the rules without an addition expressing a wider connotation, has its historic significance. It describes the constitutional courts created under Article 3 of the Constitution. Courts of the Territories are Legislative Courts, properly speaking, and are not district courts of the United States. We have often held that vesting a territorial court with jurisdiction similar to that vested in the district courts of the United States (98 U.S. 145) does not make it a 'District Court of the United States'. "Not only did the promulgating order use the term District Courts of the United States in its historic and proper sense, but the omission of provision for the application of the rules the territorial court and other courts mentioned in the authorizing act clearly shows the limitation that was intended."
Mookini v. U.S., 303 U.S. 201 (1938)