Landmark Case Reveals 150 Years of Constitutional Treason Committed by Federal

[Ross]

Landmark Case Reveals 150 Years of
Constitutional Treason Committed by Federal Courts

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.

The rancher was in his rights to petition the the Federal Court for lack of territorial and personal jurisdiction, yet the the judge continued to remain silent.  The reason is that any response in writing to the Petitioner's filings—whether for or against Petitioner—will substantiate treason to the Constitution, not only on his part, but on the part of every other federal judge and DOJ attorney practicing anywhere in the Union.

Inasmuch as the penalty for Constitution treason is death, there was a method to his muteness.

This turned the who thing into a landmark case. Constitutional scholars knew it all along.  A ruling for the Petitioner that the Federal Court lacked territorial and personal jurisdiction could end over 150 years of legislative-branch illegality and halt the entire fraudulent federal judicial apparatus because no federal court would have the jurisdiction enter judgments, orders, or decrees in favor of the United States.  If the Department of Justice cannot prosecute a case anywhere in America, the days of federal jurisdiction over the American People are over.

Is this why the court remained silent?  Who knows but it is better to commit fraud than Constitutional treason.  The law states that silence from the Court is fraud when there is a legal or moral duty to rule or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. It is a felony, not death.

With no federal response forthcoming the increasingly nervous Petitioner on January 14, 2016, filed an Affidavit of Information ( criminal complain) as well as a Verified Accounting of Offenses and Debt and a Demand for Payment of  $1,841,451.45.

This got the attention of nearly everyone in the legal field.  The filings of the Petitioner could no longer be ignored.  The Federal Court had to act.

On January 22, 2016, United States Magistrate Judge Keith F. Giblin on January 22, 2016, entered a Report and Recommendation on Motion for Summary Judgment and Motions to Dismiss that came to be regarded as a preposterous whitewash among many in the legal community.  Magistrate Giblin's solution to his employer's jurisdictional problem was to ignore the evidence, falsify the record, and recommend that the Lufkin Judge authorize the taking of Petitioner's ranch without constitutional authority.

Not willing to give up the fight the Petitioner then requested the United States District Judge Beryl A. Howell in the District of Columbia to impose a temporary restraining order on enforcement of the Lufkin Judge's final judgment to allow time to resolve the legal controversy.

It did not fly.

On April 1, 2016, Judge Howell's Memorandum Order Dismissing Petitioner's Complaint ruled, incorrectly, that the Constitution gave the Lufkin Court the capacity to take territorial jurisdiction in Tyler County, Texas.  Case closed, at least for now.

The irony of it all.  Judge Howell's ruling violated the Constitution concerning the jurisdiction of the Federal Court that allowed the Federal Court to continue its 150 year run on violating the Constitution over its jurisdiction.

We do not know the next moves of the Texas rancher but the ruling of Judge Howell and the power of the federal government promises the likely outcome.  The Texas rancher will be destroyed; he will lose his ranch and all of his possessions because his legal claims were squashed by the illegal actions of the federal government.

http://www.truthandaction.org/landmark-case-reveals-150-years-constitutional-treason-committed-federal-courts/

*********************************

SUPREMECOURTCASE

Petitioner sues six Federal judges
and 41 others to recover home stolen two years ago
under color of authority

SEPTEMBER 14, 2016
SUPREMECOURTCASE

The subject of this post is a comprehensive suit at equity (see post of March 18, 2016, infra, for the principles of equity) for a constructive trust based on constructive fraud, filed with the 284th District Court of Montgomery County, Texas, August 11, 2016, and amended August 16, 2016.

The root word of "constructive" is construe (not construct):

"con׳strue . . . to determine the meaning of ; interpret ; explain, as to construe a foreign language (into English) ; to construe one's conduct ; to construe a clause or a law."  A Standard Dictionary of the English Language, Isaac K. Funk, Editor in Chief (Funk & Wagnalls Company: New York, 1903) (hereinafter "Funk & Wagnalls"), p. 404.

"constructive, adj. Legally imputed; having an effect in law though not necessarily in fact. ● Courts usu. give something a constructive effect for equitable reasons <the court held that the shift supervisor had constructive knowledge of the machine's failure even though he did not actually know until two days later>."  Black's Law Dictionary, Seventh Edition, Bryan A. Garner, Editor in Chief (West Group: St. Paul Minn., 1999), p. 309.

A constructive trust is not an actual trust per se but an equitable remedy imposed by the court to redress wrongs and prevent unjust enrichment resulting from, among other things, constructive fraud; to wit:

"constructive trust . . . a trust set up by a court to deal with property that has been acquired by fraud or by inequitable means; specifically : a trust so formed to distribute property where distribution and enjoyment under the original transaction was against the principles of equity."  Webster's Third New International Dictionary: Unabridged, (Merriam-Webster, Incorporated: Springfield, Mass., 2000), s.v. "Constructive trust."

"Constructive fraud occurs when there is a breach of a legal or equitable duty that, irrespective of guilt, the law declares fraudulent because of its tendency to deceive others, to violate confidence, or to injure public interests . . . . An example of constructive, as opposed to actual, fraud involves the failure to disclose facts when there is a duty to make a disclosure. . . ." William V. Dorsaneo III, Texas Litigation Guide, Vol. 4, Ch. 55 (Matthew Bender & Company, Inc.: New York, 2016) ("Dorsaneo"), p. 55-5.

"The most important and common type of constructive fraud supporting the imposition of constructive trusts involves the breach of a fiduciary or confidential relationship . . . . When an abuse of a confidential or fiduciary relationship is alleged, the burden of proof is on the fiduciary to establish the fairness of the transaction, that there was full disclosure of all facts and circumstances, and that there was good faith and the absence of pressure or influence on the part of the fiduciary . . . ."  Id. at 55-8.

"Fiduciary relationships are those that, as a matter of law, are relationships of trust and confidence. . . ."  Id. at 55-9.

Every judge is a fiduciary toward the public, of which Petitioner is a part; to wit:

"  'Fraud in its elementary common law sense of deceit — and this is one of the meanings that fraud bears in the statute, see United States v. Dial, 757 F.2d 163, 168 (7th Cir.1985) — includes the deliberate concealment of material information in a setting of fiduciary obligation. A public official is a fiduciary toward the public, including, in the case of a judge, the litigants who appear before him, and if he deliberately conceals material information from them, he is guilty of fraud. . . .' " McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350, 371–372 (1987), quoting Judge Posner in United States v. Holzer, 816 F.2d 304 (1987).

https://supremecourtcase.wordpress.com/

This is far to long of an article for me to post all of it. There is some mind blowing information about the Federal Reserve and Taxation, way on down it this legal document.  Happy Reading !

[redcliffsw]