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

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.

Read about this historic case here: Supremecourtcase



Leave a Reply

Pin It on Pinterest