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.
Great now what look the other way
Sounds like another rancher that hasn’t paid his taxes, owes the government. He decides to not work with the IRS but then builds up added debt for failure to pay and is now crying because the government is trying to collect what is owed.
No surprise with the IDIOTS on our Supreme Court…..just wait for January 20, 2017 – and (hopefully) the demise of a couple of the old goats will change things drastically. The United States will once again become a nation of LAWS!!!!! God please Bless America again and Bless and watch over our beloved PRESIDENT TRUMP!!!!!
This is how you end up with a government that runs the people instead of the other way around.
How does one own grazing rights except for a term of years? Just asking. I lease land for a set number of years and I pay the taxes. As far as I know there are no federal tax on property. Again just asking and I don’t know. If the Feds own the land just kick everyone off our land and leave it empty. It would save money, right.?
must read
Feds can’t own land, hence DC is a territory not a state. They can only hold public lands in trust for the people
Everything in that “Article” is BULLSH!T
I will also note he LOST his appeal, and his property.
The case is:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff, v. JOHN PARKS TROWBRIDGE, JR., BRIGHT FUTURE INVESTMENTS, INC., and DEAL ABILITIES, Defendants.
United States District Court, E.D. Texas, Lufkin Division.
March 3, 2016.
(quoting the case in part)
After careful consideration, the Court concludes that the objections are without merit. Trowbridge’s objections are based on the frivolous arguments he has made throughout this proceeding that the Court lacks jurisdiction to consider the United States’ claims seeking perfection of its federal tax liens and foreclosure. He continues to argue that the Court does not have jurisdiction over him because he is a resident of Texas and is geographically excepted from this Court’s jurisdiction, despite the fact that the United States’ claims are based on federal law. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (“The district courts shall have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States”). His objections are meritless and fail to point out any error in the magistrate judge’s report with the specificity required by 28 U.S.C. § 636 and Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 72. See 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1)(C) (“A judge of the court shall make a de novo determination of those portions of the report or specified proposed findings or recommendations to which objection is made.”) (emphasis added); Fed. R. Civ. P. 72(b) (requiring specific objections).
The Court accordingly OVERRULES defendant Trowbridge’s objections (Doc. No. 62) in their entirety. Having considered the United States’ request for summary judgment, Trowbridge’s motions to dismiss and Judge Giblin’s findings and recommendation, the Court ORDERS that the Report and Recommendation on Motion for Summary Judgment and Motions to Dismiss (Doc. No. 60) is ADOPTED. Pursuant to the magistrate judge’s recommendation, the Court further ORDERS that the motion for summary judgment (Doc. No. 42) is GRANTED and Trowbridge’s Motions to Dismiss are DENIED (Doc. No. 46 & No. 49).
http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20FDCO%2020160303E00/U.S.%20v.%20TROWBRIDGE
One more stupid article.