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.
Complete hogwash, as usual from Truth and Action. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution *CLEARLY* reads: “The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority;–to all cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls;–to all cases of admiralty and maritime jurisdiction;–to controversies to which the United States shall be a party;–to controversies between two or more states;–between a state and citizens of another state;–between citizens of different states;–between citizens of the same state claiming lands under grants of different states, and between a state, or the citizens thereof, and foreign states, citizens or subjects.” Since a tax lien is a case arising from the “laws of the United States,” the federal courts *CLEARLY* have jurisdiction. This is even more apparent because the Sixteenth Amendment to the Constitution clearly gives the Congress the power to levy taxes on incomes. Furthermore, the judge could not commit treason by ruling so, not just because the Constitution clearly grants jurisdiction, but also because it does not constitute treason, also defined in Article III as “Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort.” Ruling to uphold the Constitution is thus NOT treason – and even an unconstitutional ruling would probably not constitute treason, but at worst *sedition.* Obviously the author lacks sufficient knowledge of the Constitution and law to even know the difference.
David Harmon, Nicola Kuban – you are obviously ignorant of the exact clause of the Constitution. Article IV, Section 2 states that “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” This clearly means a) That the federal government can own land, b) establish regulations the use of land it owns, b) dispose of such lands as it finds in excess, and c) cannot take state-owned lands without due process. It allows but DOES NOT REQUIRE the sale of federal lands – and a requirement that it sell all real property would be asanine on the face, as Article I, Section 8 CLEARLY states that the federal government will maintain ownership of certain real property for public purposes: “To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings.”
Josh Baynard Read the actual Constitution. Such jurisdiction clearly exists, since the article indicates that these are tax liens under federal law, and Article III, Section 2 clearly states that federal courts have jurisdiction under federal law. Actually read the Constitution rather than assuming that, because some dumbass whackjob web site states something, it must be true.
Roger McLaughlin That seems to describe most of what Truth and Action writes – if they say it, it must be so, damned be actual facts.
Ughh – the federal jurisdiction in question WAS established by a Convention of States – read Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution. As usual, the writers at Truth and Action have their heads up their asses and show their ignorance by making easily disproved statements that a simple reading of the Constitution shows are wrong. My suggestion is to actually READ the Constitution instead of the$#%&!@*bait these idiots write.
Chris Hall – Don’t be an idiot. Article III, Section 2 of the Constitution clearly gives federal courts jurisdiction over cases of federal law (which, according to Amendment 16, would include liens to collect on default income taxes).
Article III, Section 2 defines the federal Court jurisdiction, and as James Schaller notes, that extends to all questions of federal *LAW*. Of course, expecting the tinfoil hat crowd to read the actual Constitution may be a bit much….
Michael FitzSimmons Completely incorrect. Article IV, Section 2 states that “The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.” This clearly means a) That the federal government can own land, b) establish regulations the use of land it owns, b) dispose of such lands as it finds in excess, and c) cannot take state-owned lands without due process. It allows but DOES NOT REQUIRE the sale of federal lands
https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/
George Avery you are of course correct. Unfortunately, I believe you and I are speaking to members of the militia movement who have a “unique” view of the United States Constitution.