The Texas rancher was living his worst nightmare. He was embroiled in an income tax case with the federal government that was intent on foreclosing on his ranch, taking everything and leaving nothing due to unpaid liens.
The rancher’s effort to fight back turned the incident into a landmark case. On September 14, 2015, he filed a petition in United States District Court, Eastern District of Texas, Lufkin Division Case No. 9:14-CV-138 that challenged the Constitutional authority of the feds to usurp the authority of the courts in Tyler County, Texas.
The United States had 14 days to respond, but remained silent, apparently the first and only time that the government failed to respond to a jurisdiction challenge.
The rancher was not dissuaded. On September 30, 2015, he filed a Demand for Dismissal. Again, there was no response. How can the worst nightmare become even worse? The rancher will likely answer that when the Federal Court in conjunction with the IRS is trying to illegally seize your property while ignoring your legal rights, this is about as bad as your nightmare can be.
All within the rights of the rancher, his petition claimed that the Federal Court lacked the territorial and personal jurisdiction in Tyler Country, Texas, and demanded a dismissal of the case. The text of the petition indicated that the law was on his side.
Read the next page to find out what happened to the Texas rancher and to the Constitutional rights of all Americans.
Plebiscite is the democratic legal procedure by which a nation changes its form of government, which in this case would have been from a democracy, by default, following the split from England and under the Articles of Confederation, to a republic, by law, under the Constitution. The authority to take such action lies only with the people and the people did not assert this authority. Why this did not occur is a topic for another discussion. The ratification of the Constitution, which is merely an agreement between the States as to the content of the Constitution, legally only achieved one thing: the dissolving of the Articles of Confederation. All of the States had to agree to the principals of the Constitution because if they had not, based on the fact that the Articles of Confederation does not have an out clause, would have essentially meant that the States would be declaring war upon each other by disagreeing as to the form of law governing the nation and the form of the national government. In the end, because the ratification did occur and the plebiscite did not, the nation was left with no particular form of national government.
This left the door wide open for a system to gradually be designed and built by bankers, lawyers and corporations, which is the system we have today. The system is a federal (meaning by agreement) commercial corporate society. This system is essentially an inversion of the type, function and power structure of the system that we think and are taught that we have. In this system rights are replaced by privileges, common law is replaced by maritime admiralty law, honest weights and measures are replaced by debt based currency, ownership of property in allodium by a free individual is replaced by ownership of property in trust with the citizen as fiduciary and the government as beneficiary, etc. While this system has permeated every aspect of our lives, it can only function, legally and by it’s very design, if we voluntarily agree to operate within it and to be controlled by it, hence the term federal. In the 20th and 21st centuries, we are told that legally the term federal means “Belonging to the general government or union of the states” [Black’s Law, 6th Ed.], but historically in general and specifically during the time that this system and the national government were being formed, the term federal was understood to legally mean “Consisting in a compact between parties, particularly and chiefly between states or nations; founded on alliance by contract or mutual agreement; as a federal government, such as that of the United States.” [Webster’s Dictionary, 1828].
There is direct and indirect evidence pointing to the absence of the Constitution all around us in many forms of subtle and not so subtle unconstitutional goings on in law, government, money, etc, however there is a particularly powerful piece of evidence which seems to show without a doubt that the Constitution is of no authority because it does not now exist, nor has it ever existed, legally. This evidence comes in the form of a ruling by the U.S. District Court in the 7th Circuit in respect to a case that most people will be familiar with: the bombing of the Murrah Building in Oklahoma City, OK, and the resulting trial, conviction and execution of Timothy McVeigh. In brief, the survivors of the bombing were attempting to use civil litigation to find remedy in their situation because there had been no remedy for them in the criminal proceedings, which, based on the Constitution, were illegally moved from the proper legal jurisdiction in the state court in Oklahoma, OK to an improper jurisdiction in the U.S. District court in Denver, CO by the judge presiding over the case. Constitutional expert lawyer Harmon L. Taylor was brought in by the legal representatives of the survivors to attempt to stop the execution of McVeigh for the purpose of deposing him and thereby preserving evidence in the form of his testimony as to the facts of the case surrounding the bombing. Taylor was successful in getting a 30 stay of execution, which was administrative, but the actual challenging of the verdict in the case based on subject matter jurisdiction (the change of venue described above) as defined by the Constitution, was dismissed by the U.S. District Court in Terre Haute, IN.
Taylor and his clients were very dissapointed and had originally decided to not submit an appeal, however, at the last minute, based on further study and consultation with other Constitutional and law experts with whom he was personally and professionally connected, Taylor decided to file the appeal. The ruling came quickly and what he was told in the ruling that upheld the dismissal of the 100% Constitutionally based case proceeded to absolutely destroy Taylor’s paradigm in every way. The court essentially said that they recognized his remarkable level of understanding of the Constitution and his ability to apply his knowledge, but that if he was going to practice law at that level there was something very important that he needed to understand: you don’t have that Constitution that you think you have and that is why this case is being dismissed. Specifically they told him that this completely Constitutionally based case was “frivolous, without merit, of no authority and ludicrous”. In other words, they are clearly and plainly saying the Constitution (the supposed supreme law of the land) is of no authority in a court of law and therefore in this nation. The Constitution, while it does exist as a written document, has no legal authority, it is not the basis for all other law in this nation and therefore it cannot be used to support any argument for or against anything concerning rights, law, contracts, etc.
As a result of this revelation, Taylor resigned from the Texas state BAR Association and set out to determine when exactly it was that we lost the Constitution, as he was at first under the impression that it was in place at sometime in the past because he, like basically everyone else, believed it to have been lawfully created by the founders as we are all taught. Through much study he discovered what was described above concerning the ratification and lack of plebiscite. Ever since this discovery he has dedicated his life to understanding the system we do have, learning how to undo the agreements we find ourselves in as well as how to stop getting into new agreements and teaching what he has learned to everyone who is willing to learn. Once one understands how the system works and is aware of where, when and how they voluntarily agree to operate within and be controlled by the system, one can learn how to stop volunteering. Anyone who is interested in an introduction to Taylor’s life and work, I would recommend listening to the interview of Taylor by John B. Wells on his radio program Caravan to Midnight at the link below.
To bring this all the way back around to the case at hand and to bring this comment to a close, I will say that based upon what I have learned from Taylor and the rest of my legal study that the actions of the national governmental agencies such as the IRS as well as the U.S. District Court system can be understood and explained when one accepts the idea that the Constitution does not exist. One of the most interesting and potentially powerful aspects of this case may be the situation surrounding the silence of the judge, court and government. The article about the case of course takes the Constitutional perspective and states that the reason that the judge / court remained silent is that any response would “substantiate treason to the Constitution”. However, if one looks at this from the perspective that there is no Constitution, then this makes no sense. There cannot be treason to the Constitution if there is no Constitution. This case has similar jurisdictional issues to Taylor’s case which if not handled “correctly” by the government could do even more to reveal the reality concerning the Constitution than the Murrah Building bombing case filed by Taylor, which is not only not what the system wants but is not legally required to do in an overt manner. Remember, this system is completely voluntary, however the system is not required to explain to you where, when and how you volunteer. They will not warn you, they will not give you any more information than is required by the rules of the system. The system is not doing anything for your benefit. Quite the contrary, we are working for the benefit of the system.
Quite a bit of study would be required to understand all the details of this particular case (as well as this topic in general), but on the face of it, the basic issues seem to be pretty straight forward once one can set the Constitution aside and learn how the actual system that makes up our legal reality works. I’m not saying I agree with it or that it is right. It just is and we must know our enemy to be able to have any hope of defeating them.
Harmon Taylor interview on Caravan to Midnight with John B. Wells
http://grizzom.blogspot.com/2015/02/caravan-to-midnight-episode-224.html
I apologize for the derogatory language in the title of the website which contains the links to the interview. This is not my webiste.
Keep those democrats in office and we will have more good times like this! when your the last sheep in America you will be slaghtered too!
The constitution means nothing to the government!
Just another obstacle to their power grab!
Public law 414 DEPORT ISLAM!