against enforcement of the summonses and to quash them are that (1) this court lacks personal jurisdiction over the plaintiffs because they do not reside in a “United States judicial district” or in the District of Columbia, Petition, p. 5; and (2) the revenue agents involved in the investigation “were unable to produce both statutes and implementing regulations ... that authorize him/them to do anything he has done in this case.... ” Id. at p. 7. The plaintiffs give as their address 123 El Diente Drive, Durango, Colorado. Petition, “Notice of Lodgement,” p. 2. The state of Colorado composes a single federal judicial district, created by 28 U.S.C. § 85. The plaintiffs’ argument that they do not reside in a United States judicial district is frivolous. See Lonsdale, 919 F.2d at 1448 (<HOLDING>). Moreover, sections 7604(a) and 7609(h)(1), 26
recognizing that state agencies which are independent of the state are citizens of the state holding that an individual is presumed to intend the natural consequences of the individuals actions holding as frivolous the argument that individuals free born white preamble sovereign natural individual common law de jure citizens of a state etc are not persons subject to taxation under the internal revenue code holding that a contract whereby a foreign state grants a private party a license to exploit the states natural resources is not a commercial activity under the fsia since natural resources to the extent they are affected with the public interest are goods in which only the sovereign may deal holding that sovereign immunity barred a federal question suit against a state brought by one of its own citizens even though the text of the eleventh amendment only addresses suits brought by citizens of another state