DECISION AND ORDER The pro se defendant, Charles Weber, has filed a motion pursuant to Fed. R. Crim. P. 29 for a judgment of acquittal setting aside a jury verdict convicting him of two counts of making and subscribing a false tax return in violation of 28 U.S.C. §7206(1). From the premise that he has a special “birthright as a descendant of the founding fathers of the United States of America” (Dkt. No. 158, p. 12), defendant Weber argues that he is a citizen of the State of New York, but not of the United States. Based upon this claim of status as a New York State citizen but not a United States citizen, the defendant contends that he is not subject to federal court jurisdiction, and that the United States did not prove during the trial that he is subject to federal income tax law. Because the defendant’s contentions are frivolous, and for all of the reasons that follow, the defendant’s Rule 29 motion for a judgment of acquittal is denied.BACKGROUNDDefendant Weber was charged in a two-count Indictment returned on January 13, 2015, with making and subscribing two false tax returns in violation of 28 U.S.C. §7206(1). The two counts in the Indictment are based upon tax returns the defendant filed on April 15, 2009, covering the 2006 and 2007 tax years. Each count charges similar false statements:First, that the defendant was a nonresident alien even though he is a United States citizen;Second, that the defendant had taxable income of only $745.33 from dividends for the 2006 calendar year, and only $812 from dividends for the 2007 calendar year, respectively;Third, that the defendant was not present inside the United States during the 2006 and 2007 calendar years; andFourth, that the defendant failed to disclose that he had engaged in the business activity of operating a dental practice from which he derived income during each of the 2006 and 2007 calendar years.Dkt. No. 1. Defendant’s trial took place from August 14th through the 21st, 2018. The defendant represented himself, but had standby counsel. The United States called 20 witnesses. The defendant called his mother to testify, and he testified on his own behalf. He was convicted on both counts of making and subscribing a false tax return.DISCUSSIONA. Jurisdiction.Defendant Weber has objected to the Court’s jurisdiction since shortly after the Indictment was returned. See Dkt. No. 22, pp. 2-3,
