Henry-Dale; Goltz and

Evangelina-Salinas; Goltz                                             

Sovereign American Citizens

 

Lodgment

Into the

DISTRICT COURT of the UNITED STATES

For the

WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

____________________________________

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA     )

                                      Petitioner     )                           

                                                                   )                       

                    -against-                         )                      No. SA-06-CA-0503-XR

                                                          )                                                  

Henry-Dale Goltz                               )

Evangelina Goltz                                 )                                              

                          Defendants-in-error    )

                 

 

Judicial Notice and Motion to Dismiss with Prejudice

FOR LACK OF GEOGRAPHIC (TERRITORIAL) JURISDICTION AND TO GRANT FURTHER MONITARY RELIEF FOR REASONS STATED HEREIN.

 

            COMES NOW Defendants-in-error, Henry-Dale Goltz and Evangelina Goltz (Goltzes), Sovereign American Citizens by reason of Alienage and Domicile, which Domicile is located within the confines of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely and exclusively by the republic of Texas, being one of the fifty (50) independent republics that together and combined form the Federal-Republic known and referenced most commonly as The United States of America, and moves this Honorable Court, mindful of its Constitutional Duties and Obligations owed to Sovereign American Citizens, and on the basis of its Presiding Officer and all attending Officers of the Court, constantly and continuously aware of their sworn Oaths of Office, in any and all proceedings before this Honorable Court and specifically recent Motions filed in this Court in the instant case, to acknowledge that said Court, because it lacks appropriate and proper geographic jurisdiction, and by being made barren of the necessary geographic jurisdiction, it matters not whether said Court possesses subject matter jurisdiction and/or personal jurisdiction, for without geographic jurisdictional authority, the Court cannot proceed to hear the merits of this case and render binding and enforceable judgments, which define and declare the rights and duties of the parties involved in this case.

 

 

I – LACK OF GEOGRAPHIC (TERRITORIAL) JURISDICTION

 

The lack of geographic (territorial) jurisdiction is made evident by the following facts:

 

  1.             Article I Section 1 of the Constitution of the [Combined by Compact] United, States of America (The Constitution) states, in relevant part: “All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States….”   Therefore, it is a fact that only The Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislative Branch (Congress) may manufacture legislation that is applicable and enforceable within the confined as defined geographic legislative jurisdictions possessed solely and exclusively by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government.

 

  1.             Article I Section 8 paragraph #3, and Article I Section 8 paragraph #17, and Article IV Section 3 paragraph #2 of The Constitution and Article IX and Article X of the Bill of Rights clearly delineate and distinguish the geographic legislative jurisdiction possessed by the Congress.  Briefly stated, the geographic legislative jurisdiction of the Congress extends to the regulation of “Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian Tribes;” and “To exercise exclusive Legislation” over  the District of Columbia, and all Places purchased by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government [the United States], and “to dispose of and make all needed Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State”.  Article IX of the Bill of Rights reaffirms the limitation stated in Article IV Section 3 paragraph #2 by stating: “The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”  And, Article X of the Bill of Rights seals the bargain when it states: “The Powers not [specifically] delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, or to the people.”  These provisions of The Constitution and the Bill of Rights  make it plain that the geographic legislative jurisdiction possessed by the Congress is confined and defined to specified territory possessed solely and exclusively by the Federal-Republic’s Central Government.

 

 

 

  1.             It is a fact of law that the legislative authority and authorizations, and the legislation provided by a legislature, which functions and operates within The Federal-Republic, are only applicable and enforceable within a defined and confined geographic jurisdiction.

           

  1.             The word “jurisdiction is defined by The American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, to mean, “The territorial range of authority or control” and “The territorial range wherein the authority of the sovereign is allowed to exercise sovereignty”. “The extent of authority and control”.  Jurisdiction is understood to mean a particular limited geographical area within which a governmental body can legislate, or force legislative compliance. Basic to legislating, which is defined to mean, providing law, is the fact that a governmental entity must possess geographic jurisdiction before it can proceed to exercise legislative authority and demand compliance to what is provided by same.  Made barren of geographic jurisdiction, there can be no such thing as legislative jurisdiction.  Because the Canadian Parliament has no geographic jurisdiction in the District of Columbia, it has no legislative jurisdiction in the District of Columbia.

 

  1.             It is a fact that the contract, The Constitution contained both “A Federal Form of Government” and a “A Republican Form Of Government”, and thus, The Constitution produced a Federal-Republic.

 

  1.             It is a fact that “A Federal Form Of Government” is defined as a contractual System Of Government, which allows two Governmental Entities to exercise sovereignty over the same people, who are domiciled within the same geographic area, at the same time, in order to fulfill different purposes in behalf of their respective benefactors who brought such Governmental Entities into existence.  To buttress that which has been aforementioned herein, The Federal-­Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch’s Article III Supreme Court (Supreme Court) stated in pertinent part, within its decision and ruling, in the case entitled: U.S. vs. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542, acknowledging the incorporation of “The Federal Form Of Government” within The Constitution, at Article X of the Bill of Rights, stated as follows:

            “We have in our political system a Government of the United States and a                                  government of each of the several [fifty (50) independent] states. Each is distinct                   from the other and each has citizens of its own....”

 

So, the Supreme Court, which is the Court of last resort within the Federal-     Republic’s Central Government’s Judicial Branch, stated that each of the two        Governmental   Entities that operate and function within The Federal-Republic, possess         separate and distinct geographic legislative jurisdictions.  Since there are two separate             Governmental Entities that operate and function at the same time within the geographic jurisdiction possessed by The Federal-Republic, (The United States) the geographic     jurisdiction possessed by The Federal-Republic is divided, by the contract, The      Constitution, into two separate and independent geographic jurisdictions.

           

  1.             In 1901, in the case entitled, Downes vs. Bidwell, 182 U. S. 244, the Supreme Court stated within its decision and ruling, that “Constitutional restrictions and limitations were NOT applicable to the areas of lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions over which Congress had exclusive legislative authority.” [Bold is provided for emphasis]  This meant, of course, that Congress had no legislative limitation within territory owned by the United States.  And in 1945, concerning this same subject covered within Downes vs. Bidwell, the Supreme Court, within its decision and ruling in the case entitled, Hooven and Allison Company vs. Evatt, 324 U. S. 652, stated, in pertinent part, as follows:

            “In exercising its constitutional power to make all needful regulations respecting              territory belonging to the United States, Congress [under the authority contained                at Article I, Section #8, Clause #17 and Article IV, Section #3, Clause #2] is not                subject to the same constitutional limitations as when it is legislating for [in                      behalf of] the [Fifty, (50) Independent] states.”

 

  1.             Because of the fact that the contract, The Constitution, specified at Article I, Section 8, paragraph #17 and Article IV, Section 3, paragraph #2, that the Congress was “Sovereign” over those areas of lands, enclaves, territories, and possessions, it could therefore exercise unlimited “sovereignty” therein, since the contractual understandings of The Constitution's constraints, restraints, limitations, and prohibitions did not apply therein. As a result, the Congress claimed, therein, their pronouncements, were “The Supreme Law of the Land”, thus negated the pronouncements made within the contract, The Constitution at Article VI, Paragraph 2 which declared that said contract was “The Supreme Law of the Land” became “The Supreme Law of the Land”.

           

  1. The decisions and rulings made by the Supreme Court, as stated within Downes vs. Bidwell, Supra, and Hooven and Allison Company vs. Evatt, Supra, confirm the fact that the Congress legislates for two separate and opposite legal systems at the same time which applies to two different geographic jurisdictions and two different classes of “citizens”.  Because of the fact that the contract, The Constitution, acknowledged the existence of “The Federal Form of Government” at Article X of the Bill of Rights, two kinds of “citizens” exist within The Federal-Republic. The two kinds of “citizens” that exist are most commonly referenced as “Sovereign-Citizens” and “U.S. Citizens”.

 

       "Sovereign-Citizens" are those “Citizens” who are born within and reside within the confines, of the defined, geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely, and exclusively, and respectively by the Fifty (50) Independent Republics, which Independent Republics together and combined form The Federal-­Republic, which Federal-Republic is referenced most commonly as The United States of America. “Sovereign-Citizens” are made “Sovereign” by the fact that they are Created Equal by The Creator of   All Things, The Master of the Universe, The Supreme Sovereign, and are equally “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights”.  By possessing these “endowed unalienable rights”, “Sovereign-Citizens” are made to be The Masters Of Their Own Individual Destinies, and on that basis can declare that they are the best judge of their own interests.  Thus, each “Sovereign-Citizen” is made to be equally “Sovereign” over their existence on Planet Earth with all other “Sovereign-Citizens”.  Of course, “Sovereign Citizens” possess the “right” to exercise sovereignty in a limited way, since they are forbidden to exercise the sovereignty that they possess in a way which will result in adversely affecting the equal right of other “Sovereign­ Citizens” to exercise their right to exercise sovereignty. “Sovereign-Citizens” possess the right to contract with each other for the purpose of protecting, insuring, preserving, and securing their “endowed unalienable rights” from being compromised, victimized, abridged, circumvented, limited, encroached, usurped, or destroyed by the acts, actions, and/or activities of would be predators, pillagers, and/or plunderers. For this purpose, “Sovereign-Citizens” exercised their “sovereignty” when they manufactured and established “Governments”. “Sovereign-Citizens” manufactured Governments in order for such to exercise sovereignty for the sole purpose of protecting, insuring, preserving, and securing the “Sovereign-Citizens” “endowed unalienable rights”. (Source of data: The Declaration of Independence, July 4, 1776.)

 

       "U.S. Citizens", on the other hand, are those “citizens” who were, or are, born within and/or who are domiciled and residing within the confines, of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by The Federal-Republic's Central Government – the United States.  “U. S. Citizens” are not protected by the mandates, requirements, demands, constraints, restraints, and prohibitions of the contract, The Constitution, because they are located within a geographic jurisdiction wherein the Congress is declared to be “Sovereign” by the contract, The Constitution.  In this environment, “U. S. Citizens” are made to be “Subjects”.  “Subjects” exist for the sole purpose of carrying out the will and whims of their Master.  In this case, “U. S. Citizens”, being made “Subjects” exist for the sole purpose of carrying out the will and whim of their Master, The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States. “Subject-citizens” are accorded “privileges” by their Master, not “rights”.

 

  1.             The Constitution, at Article I Section 8 paragraph #17, states, in relevant part, as follows:  “The Congress shall have the power...To exercise exclusive legislation in all cases whatsoever over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may by cession of particular States and the acceptance of Congress, become the seat of the Government of The United States. [District of Columbia] and to exercise like authority over all places purchased by the consent of the legislature of the state in which the same shall be, for the erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock yards and other needful Buildings; -- And      [paragraph #18] To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers....”   It is made obvious by the provisions of Article I Section 8 paragraphs #17 and #18, that only within the geographic jurisdictions defined by the enumerated land masses which have either been ceded to, or purchased by, The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States, does the Congress possess the authority to assume it is “sovereign” and where it may therefore proceed to provide legislation by exercising “Unlimited Sovereignty”, since The Constitution's constraints, restraints, limitations, prohibitions, mandates, and requirements do not apply within that geographic territory.  Therefore, it is a fact that The Constitution clearly states that the unlimited legislative powers of the Congress has territorial limitations, and in fact it states precisely the boundaries of those limited territories.  The boundaries do NOT include the Domicile of the named Defendants-in-error since their Domicile is NOT located in territory which has been either ceded to, or purchased by, The Federal-Republic's Central Government – the United States.

 

  1.             The Constitution at Article IV, Section 3, paragraph #2 states, in relevant part, that: “The Congress shall have Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations, respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State”.  It is made obvious by this provision that only within the geographic jurisdictions possessed by the U. S. Territories, identified as The District of Columbia, The U. S. Virgin Islands, American Samoa, Puerto Rico, Guam, The Northern Mariana Islands, and Certain Trust Territories located in the Pacific Islands does the Congress possess the authority to assume it is “Sovereign” and may therefore exercise “Unlimited Sovereignty” therein, without observing the Constitutional constraints, restraints, limitations, prohibitions, mandates, and requirements.

           

  1.             The Constitution, at Article VI, paragraph #2, states, in relevant part, as follows: “This Constitution and the laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof [that is laws which have been provided by the Congress which have applications and made enforceable within the geographic jurisdiction possessed by The Federal-­Republic – the fifty (50) republics, commonly referred to as States] and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the authority of The United States [Of America], shall be the supreme law of the land….”  It is made obvious by this provision that legislation provided by the Congress which will have applicability and enforcement qualities within the confines, of the defined, geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by The Federal-Republic – the fifty (50) republics, – such legislation must conform to, and abide by the Constitutional dictates, mandates, requirements, constraints, restraints, and prohibitions.

 

                  Therefore, in the light of what has been enumerated and enunciated herein, it is conclusive that all legislative authority and authorizations possessed by the Congress is made limited by the fact that such authority and authorizations only possess applicability and enforcement qualities within the confines, of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely, and exclusively by The Federal-Republic's Central Government – the United States. Also, the legislative authority of the Congress is made limited by the Constitution’s constraints, restraints, limitations, prohibitions, mandates, and requirements.  And, it is equally true that such legislative authority possessed by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States is made limited by the fact that within The Federal-Republic exists fifty (50) independent Republics wherein, fifty Governments exist, and ,wherein, each of the fifty independent Republic's Governments possess the sole, and exclusive authority to exercise sovereignty in behalf of their respective benefactors within the confines, of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely, and exclusively, and respectively, by each of the fifty (50) Republics.

       Furthermore, since the Congress does not possess the authority to proceed by legislation to enhance, or to enlarge, or to expand, or to broaden, or to increase the geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States, it follows that such statutes, codified as 26 U.S.C. 7402 and 26 U.S.C. 7403, and 28 U.S.C. 1331, and 28 U.S.C. 1340 and 28 U.S.C. 1345, and 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) and 28 U.S.C. 1396, may only have applicability and enforcement qualities within the confines of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely and exclusively by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States.

 

                   This being the case, if any public official, employed by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States, and functioning and operating within his office under a Sworn Oath of Office, proceeds to attempt to enforce any of the statutes provided by the Congress, in geographic land areas wherein The Federal-Republic’s Central Government – the United States – does not possess either geographic or territorial, legislative jurisdictions, is guilty of committing an ultra vires act.  An ultra vires act is an act “beyond the scope of the powers of a corporation, as defined by its charter …. The term has broad application and includes not only acts prohibited by the charter, but acts which are in excess of powers granted and not prohibited.” [Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition]  The commission of an ultra vires act by a public servant, who is employed by sworn oath, is considered to be a violation of the Oath of Office, which violation is an act of Treason.  As used here the definition of “Treason” is “the offense of attempting by overt acts to overthrow the government of the state to which the offender owes allegiance …” [Black's Law Dictionary, Fourth Edition]

 

II – The COURT’S LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION AND

PERSONAL JURISDICTIONS IN CASE NUMBER SA-06-CA-0503-XR.

 

                  The Federal-Republic’s Central Government's Judicial Branch's Inferior Courts, referenced as "District Courts of the United States", gain their existence by acts provided by The Federal-Republic's Central Government's Legislative Branch (Congress). The Constitution at Article III Section 1 states, in pertinent part, as follows: “The judicial Power of the United States, shall be vested in one supreme Court and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish.”

 

                   Accordingly, the Congress proceeded to divide The Federal-Republic into Districts and provided Inferior Courts referenced most commonly as “District Courts of the United States”.  Then, the Congress proceeded to accommodate the “Districts” with assigned Circuit Courts of Appeal.  The District Courts of the United States are Courts that possess Original Jurisdiction”; they bear the burden of carrying out the judicial power and authority contained within The Constitution, at Article III Section 2.  The Circuit Courts of Appeal exist primarily to review the proceedings of The District Courts of the United States to determine whether or not the proceedings of the District Courts were carried out in accordance with “procedural due process of law” and “substantive due process of law”.  If the standards of conduct are not proper, the case in question will be sent back to the Court of origination for correction.

 

                   In addition, the Congress provides for the manufacture and establishment of Article I Courts.  An Article I Court exists for the sole purpose of carrying out the Legislative Authority that the contract, The Constitution, has delegated to the Congress.  Therefore, Article I Courtsdecisions and rulings only apply for enforcement within the confines, of the defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed by The Federal-Republic's Central Government.

 

                   The Constitution provides for “District Courts of the United Statesjurisdiction whenever the case “arises under” the law provided by the Congress, and applies to the confined, as defined geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely, and exclusively, by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government.  And the Congress has provided, within statute 26 U. S. C. 1331 that their Inferior Courts, known as District Courts Of The United States, may possess jurisdiction over any civil action arising under the Constitution and may possess jurisdiction over those Civil Actions which arise as a consequence of statutory law provided by the Congress, or may possess jurisdiction over any Civil Actions which arise over matters related to Treaties negotiated and placed into effect by acts and actions of the Congress.

 

                  It is a fact that the jurisdictions provided by the Congress, to the Judicial Branch's Article III Inferior Courts and to the Legislative Branch's Article I Inferior Courts is obviously the jurisdictions that the Congress possesses.  Since Constitutionally, the confined, as defined, geographic, legislative jurisdictions possessed solely and exclusively by The Federal-­Republic's Central Government is made to be limited, the Congress is prohibited to proceed to provide legislation on its own authority to enlarge such geographic, legislative jurisdictions.  Therefore, such legislation that is provided by the Congress is limited to the confined, as defined, geographic legislative jurisdictions which are possessed by The Federal-Republic's Central Government. With the exception of the Article III Supreme Court, the jurisdictions made available to the Article III Inferior Courts by the Congress therefore, like the jurisdictional authority possessed by the Congress, being made to be limited, so it follows, that the Judicial jurisdictional authority is made to be likewise limited.

 

                   Therefore; the merits of this case are not within the geographic jurisdiction possessed by this Honorable Court.

 

 

CONCLUSION

 

A    Legislation manufactured by The Federal-Republic’s Central Government’s Legislative Branch (Congress) is limited by the Constitution to the confined, as defined geographic legislative jurisdiction possessed solely, and exclusively by The Federal-Republic's Central Government – the United States.

 

B   The United States, represented by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and this Court, lacks geographic (territorial) jurisdiction because The Constitution limits the legislative Authority of Congress to that territory represented by the “Seat of the Government” and “all Places purchased …” by the United States and ceded to the United States.  The domicile of the Goltzes does not lie within that territory. The Goltzes domicile lies without the United States.

 

C.     The United States, represented by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and this Court, lacks personal jurisdiction because without geographic (territorial) jurisdiction, there can be no personal jurisdiction.

 

D.     The United States, represented by the Internal Revenue Service, the Department of Justice and this Court, lacks subject matter Jurisdiction because without geographic (territorial) jurisdiction, there can be no subject matter jurisdiction.

 

MOTION

 

FOR THESE REASONS, and Others previously stated, the Goltzes move this honorable court to deny Plaintiff’s requests and, as a matter of law, issue an ORDER for Summary Judgment against the Plaintiff for failing to state a claim for which relief can be granted.

FURTHER, since there are no valid, legal assessments, based on a return, in existence and since “Notices of Levy” and “Notices of Lien” do not have any legal force and effect, except as to intimidate and imply that some action on the part of the recipient is required, the Goltzes MOVE this honorable court to enter such ORDERS as necessary to correct prior injustices as follows:

1.     ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to refund to the Goltzes with interest those withheld, but un-assessed, funds shown on Form 1040 tax returns as follows: for 1999 - US$9,191.43, for 2000 - US$205.08, for 2003 - US$2,071.90, for 2004 - US$2,016.86, and for 2005 - US$3,028.70. Funds which are not the subject of a valid, legal assessment cannot be collected.  [26 USC 6201(a) and 26 USC 6501(a)];

2.     ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to rescind, repeal, cancel, and annul all “Notices of Levy” issued by the Internal Revenue Service since 1 January 2000, including those recently sent to LUCENT PENSION SERVICE CENTER, CHARLES SCHWAB & CO INC, CHASE BANK OF TEXAS, FIRST FIDELITY BANK NA, FROST NATIONAL BANK, WACHOVIA BANK N.A., SECURITY SERVICE FEDERAL CREDIT UNION, and SOCIAL SECURITY ADMINISTRATION.  Since several of these institutions have little or no relationship with the Goltzes, and only served to discredit our name and reputation;

3.     ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to return to the Goltzes all funds, with interest, coerced by intimidation from banking and financial institutions and the Social Security Administration (SSA) to the Internal Revenue Service in their mistaken response to bogus “Notices of Levy” received by them with no valid, lawful basis, court order, or permission from the Goltzes to transfer their funds to the Internal Revenue Service [Frost Bank: US$3,150.93, Security Service Federal Credit Union: US$31.91, SSA: US$ TBD];

4.     ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to return to the Goltzes all funds coerced by intimidation from, and mistakenly sent by, RMH, Inc. in response to an unlawful and continuing “Notice of Levy” on the property of Evangelina Salinas Goltz during 2004 and 2005, with no valid, lawful basis, court order, or permission from her for the transfer of her funds to the Internal Revenue Service;

5.     ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to rescind, repeal, cancel, and annul, in writing with an affirmed copy to the Goltzes, all “Notices of Lien” unlawfully issued by the Internal Revenue Service since 1 January 2000 including those referring to “REAL PROPERTY” or “PERSONAL PROPERTY” and recorded in the public records of the County Clerk of BEXAR COUNTY, TX 78205 in violation of Fed. Tax Lien Reg. Act;

6.     ORDER the Internal Revenue Service to rescind, repeal, cancel, and annul, in writing with an affirmed copy to the Goltzes, all the so-called debts, taxes, penalties, statutory interest, and additions that they allege in their complaint;

7.     ORDER the issuance of a permanent injunction prohibiting all future actions against the Goltzes by the Internal Revenue Service and its agents, including the U. S. Department of Justice, as regarding the so-called income tax, except in the rare situation where the Goltzes receive income, which is defined in numerous United States Supreme Court cases [Stratton’s Independence v. Howbert, 231 US 399; Doyle v. Mitchell Brothers Co., 247 US 179; Southern Pacific v. Lowe, 247 US 330; Eisner v. Macomber, 252 US 189; Merchant’s Loan & Trust Co. v. Smietanka, 255 US at page 517; Clark v. U. S., 211 F.2d 100] as gain from corporate activity or from wages as a U.S. Government employee; and

8.     ORDER that the Goltzes have such further relief as this honorable court may deem just and proper, including its costs herein, for the persistent and groundless oppression, lawless behavior, obstruction of justice, and abuse of power exercised by the Internal Revenue Service and its agent, the U. S. Department of Justice in violation of the Constitution, law, codes, rules, and regulations since 1 January 2000.

By My Hand:                                                         By My Hand:

____________________________                     ______________________________

Henry-Dale Goltz   (pro per)                                 Evangelina-Salinas Goltz (pro per)

Affidavit of Truth

We, Henry Dale Goltz and Evangelina Salinas Goltz, do solemnly affirm that the Pleading attached hereto is true and correct to the best of our knowledge and belief.

So help us, God.

 

Affirmed by: _________________________        Affirmed by: ________________________

                              Henry-Dale; Goltz                                            Evangelina Salinas; Goltz          

Subscribed and sworn to before me this _____ day of November 2006.

                                                                                 _____________________________________
SIGNATURE OF NOTARY OR AUTHORIZED OFFICIAL

 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

      I certify that on this 13th day of November, 2006 A.D., a true and exact copy of the aforesaid Motion was sent, first class postage prepaid, by U.S. mail, to 

Michelle C. Johns

Attorney, Tax Division

Dept of Justice

717 North Harwood, Suite 400

Dallas, TX 75201

 

Attorney of record for Plaintiff

 

All Rights Reserved

 

______________________________________

Henry-Dale Goltz, Sovereign American Citizen