The Petition for Writ of Certiorari presents incontrovertible evidence that every Federal trial court in America is a territorial (not a constitutional) court with jurisdiction only in the District of Columbia or other Federal territory.
Notwithstanding this legal fact—which no one denies—the Supreme Court on June 8, 2015, issued an order denying certiorari.
This means that there is some other overriding non-constitutional (statutory) factor—unknown to Petitioner at time of filing of the petition but known by all bench officers involved in this case—that allows the Justices to approve of the judgment of the appeals court affirming the judgment of the district court despite the fact that the district court is a territorial court with no jurisdiction in Texas (where Petitioner resides).
Supreme Court Rule 44.2 provides that under certain extraordinary conditions a petition may be presented a second time, through a “Petition for Rehearing.”
Such conditions have arisen since the original filing April 29, 2015.
Wherefore, Petitioner on June 30, 2015, filed a Petition for Rehearing.
The Petition for Rehearing, though only 14 pages in length, is comprehensive and reveals, among other things:
- On what, exactly, the district court relies for authority to exercise jurisdiction, despite the fact that Petitioner resides (and Petitioner’s property is located) without the territory over which the court has jurisdiction;
- The particular section of the Internal Revenue Code that is used to ensnare American nontaxpayers into an implied contract that makes them liable to Federal income taxes no matter where they may reside, but also provides the exact procedure whereby any such American can reverse the process, extinguish the implied contract, and be relieved of liability to Federal income taxes;
- The precise meaning of the definition of the most important statutory term in existence, around which literally everything else revolves: “United States”;
- The universal and simple but semi-secret rules of statutory construction (used by Congress to legislate the law into existence and every Federal judge and magistrate and Supreme Court Justice to interpret and pronounce it thereafter) that allow anyone to determine the exact meaning of any definition (no matter how vague, complicated, or confusing) of any statutory term in any body of law; and
- Documentary evidence in the record of the case that shows that the district judge is not an impartial arbiter but rather an agent of the plaintiff, i.e., the United States, secretly working in its behalf to defeat Petitioner—a setting known as a kangaroo court:
- kangaroo court. A self-appointed tribunal or mock court in which the principles of law and justice are disregarded, perverted, or parodied. . . . 2. A court or tribunal characterized by unauthorized or irregular procedures, esp. so as to render a fair proceeding impossible. 3. A sham legal proceeding. Black’s Law Dictionary 7th ed., p. 359
* * * *