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.
That cuz you believe a load of horseshit. ONLY a corporate US citizen can be considered ; a “person”, an “individual” a “resident” or “domiciled” WITHIN the United States (Minor) located WHOLLY withIN the District of Columbia Municipal Corporation under legislative meaning.
That US person is at war with the Republic of 1776. Voting (instead of being an state level “elector”) for the corporate foreign controlled and owned is prima facia evidence of insurrection and places you under military rule and denies you your natural and inherent Rights as an “Enemy Combatant”.
See Amendatory Act of TWEA of March 9th, 1933.
Title 28 USC 3002 Section 15(A) states that the United States is a Federal Corporation and not a Government, including the Judiciary Procedural Section. The de jure states are guaranteed the form of Republics and the de jure united States (of America) were subsumed, or set aside by the Bankruptcy Act of 1933.
All jurisdiction over criminal proceedings are factually administrations in commerce and are initiated by the presumption any natural born American is an “enemy of the state,” or “resident alien enemy” resultant to the TRADING WITH THE ENEMY ACT of 1917 (aka TWEA) as codified in Title 50 USC. Whereas, you actually come under Title 50 USC Appendix Application Sec. -§21, and as such, are not to be presumed either “enemy of the state,” or “resident alien enemy” nor a repatriated US citizen. They ignore that to steal your wealth of the PCT trust established in your name at birth as a member of the political subdivision in what is called “takings”, which has to do with State sponsored in-land Piracy.
The Courts and the States through Law Enforcement Officers are enforcing the following code on American Nationals; aka original jurisdiction “state Citizens” against their will or knowledge: Title 50 USC Appendix App, Trading, Act, Sec. §4, “Licenses to enemy or ally of enemy insurance or reinsurance companies; change of name; doing business in United States,” as a result of the passage of The Amendatory Act of March 9, 1933 to Title 50 USC, TWEA, Public Law No. 65-91 (40 Stat. L. 411) October 6, 1917.
That’s why everything is licensed, registered or certificate of titled. Nothing like that existed before then.
Man was free and independent.
A license is the privilege of doing something that would otherwise be “illegal”, but not unlawful. The rulings & statutes make it clear that residents or US Citizens are
government employees, who have no constitutional protection, unlike the Citizens of the several States.
Know who you are… Or pay a terrible price.
Yeah? Do you LIKE being chattel property? Does it make you feel all warm and fuzzy to know you are owned, tagged and managed as an incompetent? It is quite clear, then, that there is a citizenship of the United States** and a citizenship of a State, which are distinct from each other and which depend upon different characteristics or circumstances in the individual.
[Slaughter House Cases, 83 U.S. 36]
(1873)
The first clause of the fourteenth amendment made negroes citizens of the United States**, and citizens of the State in which they reside, and thereby created two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and the other of the state.
[Cory et al. v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327]
[(1874) headnote 8]
We have in our political system a Government of the United States** and a government of each of the several States. Each one of these governments is distinct from the others, and each has citizens of its own ….
[U.S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U.S. 542]
(1875)
One may be a citizen of a State and yet not a citizen of the United States. Thomasson v. State, 15 Ind. 449; Cory v. Carter, 48 Ind. 327 (17 Am. R. 738); McCarthy v. Froelke, 63 Ind. 507; In Re Wehlitz, 16 Wis. 443.
[McDonel v. State, 90 Ind. 320, 323]
(1883)
A person who is a citizen of the United States** is necessarily a citizen of the particular state in which he resides. But a person may be a citizen of a particular state and not a citizen of the United States**. To hold otherwise would be to deny to the state the highest exercise of its sovereignty, — the right to declare who are its citizens.
[State v. Fowler, 41 La. Ann. 3806 S. 602] (1889)
There are, then, under our republican form of government, two classes of citizens, one of the United States** and one of the state. One class of citizenship may exist in a person, without the other, as in the case of a resident of the District of Columbia; but both classes usually exist in the same person.
[Gardina v. Board of Registrars, 160 Ala. 155 48 S. 788, 791] (1909)
There is a distinction between citizenship of the United States**and citizenship of a particular state, and a person may be the former without being the latter
[Alla v. Kornfeld, 84 F.Supp. 823
headnote 5] (1949)
A person may be a citizen of the United States** and yet be not identified or identifiable as a citizen of any particular state.
[Du Vernay v. Ledbetter
61 So.2d 573]
… citizens of the District of Columbia were not granted the
privilege of litigating in the federal courts on the ground of
diversity of citizenship. Possibly no better reason for this
fact exists than such citizens were not thought of when the judiciary article [III] of the federal Constitution was drafted… citizens of the United States** … were also not thought of; but in any event a citizen of the United States**, who is not a citizen of any state, is not within the language of the [federal] Constitution.
[Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914]
That there is a citizenship of the United States and a citizenship of a state, and the privileges and immunities of one are not the same as the other is well established by the decisions of the courts of this country.
[Tashiro v. Jordan, 201 Cal. 236] (1927)
No fortifying authority is necessary to sustain the proposition that in the United States a double citizenship exists. A citizen of the United States is a citizen of the Federal Government and at the same time a citizen of the State in which he resides. Determination of what is qualified residence within a State is not here necessary. Suffice it to say that one possessing such double citizenship owes allegiance and is entitled to protection from each sovereign to whose jurisdiction he is subject.
[Kitchens v. Steele, 112 F.Supp. 383] (USDC/WDMO 1953)
The privileges and immunities clause of the Fourteenth Amendment
protects very few rights because it neither incorporates any of the
Bill of Rights nor protects all rights of individual citizens. See Slaughter-House Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 36, 21 L.Ed. 394 (1873).
Instead, this provision protects only those rights peculiar to being
a citizen of the federal government; it does not protect those rights
which relate to state citizenship.
[Jones v. Temmer, 829 F.Supp. 1226 (USDC/DCO 1993)]
Nicola Kuban Wrong it is part of the Constitution that sets out the ability of the federal government to own and manage land. There is a specific section that sets up how the federal government is restricted from taking over land owned by a state. However the land out west that is owned by the federal government is land it acquired in treaty or war spoils. A great portion of that land passed into individual ownership and state ownership, but what is left is owned by the nation and managed by the federal government-again this is set up in the constitution.
Ken Classen Thanks for the intelligent conversation. You must be one of the graduates of Trump U. In case you don’t understand I am being flippant. If you can’t carry on a decent conversation, just bypass my comments and reply elsewhere.
He’s leaving this Rancher little option but to remove the judge. The .44 colt way.
Like I stated aabove I want more facts before deciding. I am against overpowering government reguations, but I still want to see the whole story.
Wait till Trump installs the next supreme court vacancy and take it there.
Nicholas Sizemore
Yeo, nothing but click bait….probably edited at a click bait farm in the Philippines.
From the top, down, the judicial branch has usurped power for government and political reasons. While all the lemmings pay attention to elections of the other two branches, the judicial branch has been slowly stripping away our rights and freedoms. The Massachusetts courts care not for the Constitution. Look at any case and you’ll find more references to case law, which isn’t law, than you will to legislated law or the Constitution. Bad decisions and interpretations by bad judges in prior cases are used to justify more nad decisions and fly in the face of the Constitution. And the judges have granted themselves certain immunities from litigation and prosecution for anything they do on the bench. Additionally, they rarely ever go against one of their own. At times, without any conviction or proof of wrongdoing, they incarcerate people for “contempt of court” for as long as they want. Wake up, America!!! Fix the judicial branch or else you or someone you know may become a political prisoner or lose their land, yes, right here in America.