Professional Documents
Culture Documents
03-18-00195-CV
29542398
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
12/6/2018 10:57 AM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
Court of Appeals Cause Number 03-18-00195-CV
__________________________________________________________
Va Lyncia Wilder
Appellant
vs
Pros Se
Page
INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05
ARGUMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 09
CASES Page
CODES
Title 28 §1251---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05
Title 1 United States Code, Section 1, Note 12. ------------------------------------ 16
25 U.S. 2216 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20
Persona, is unlearned in law and requests the court relax standards; Appellant
Cause No.: 4EV180032, in The County Court at Law #2, Williamson County,
Texas Cause No.: 18-0236-CC2 and in The Court of Appeals, Third District of
regarding the appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court on March
28, 2018, this appeals court issued an unsigned Memorandum Opinion and
David Puryear, Justice; Appellant files this Petition for Panel Hearing;
courts have original jurisdiction1?; if the courts do not have jurisdiction, does trial
courts have the right to confer jurisdiction without jurisdiction being had?; and if
1
Title 28 §1251
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 5 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
they don’t have jurisdiction, is the Appellant bound to the void ab initio judgments
Aboriginal Title, the court renders an opinion and judgment regarding possession
and foreclosure;
appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach
merits, but, rather, should dismiss the action.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.
does this court or the trial courts have the right to confer jurisdiction where
the United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge The Common
Aboriginal Title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a
“long time”; Individuals may also establish Aboriginal Title, if their ancestors held
2
A judgment rendered by a court without personal jurisdiction over the defendant is void. It is a
nullity. [A judgment shown to be void for lack of personal service on the defendant is a nullity.]
Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573, 576-77, 840 P.2d 553 (1992), rev. denied 252 Kan.
1093 (1993).
not limited to historical or traditional land uses; Aboriginal title may NOT be
Indian title, where the United States federal government recognizes tribal land by
further noting, the Nonintercourse Act (also known as the Indian Intercourse
Act or the Indian Nonintercourse Act) regulates the inalienability of the Aboriginal
Title in the United States; having the prohibition of the alienation of Indian lands
without the approval of the federal government;4 having its origins in the Royal
under International law, ATCS, Jus Cogens and Federal common law,
Appellant holds by right Aboriginal Title to and the exclusive right to occupy
under trust the aforementioned restricted tribal lands and property as stated and
described herein; this right cannot be terminated; the power over inheritance in the
3
Sioux Tribe v. U.S. 205 Ct.Cl. 148 (1974)
4
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State, 470 U.S. 226 (1985), was a
landmark United States Supreme Court Case concerning Aboriginal Title in the United States.
The case sometimes referred to as Oneida II, was “the first Indian land claim case won on the
basis of the Nonintercourse Act.”
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 7 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
absence of Congressional Legislation rests with the Indian Tribe, but the Congress
itself cannot disturb rights, which have vested under tribal law and customs;5
recognition of a First Nation Peoples or the separate and sovereign body politic the
American Indian Inhabitant need NOT have federal 501(c)3 recognition; making
Common Law, UNDRIP, UDHR, ADRIP, etc; being citizens of a separate and
distinct sovereign body politic, NOT 14th Amendment “Chattel” U.S. Citizens,
the U.S. and its body politic; inclusive of the states; “Indian Nations had always
original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil, from time
immemorial!”
process, not relinquishing her right to a jury trial of her status peers; thus, now
5
Jones vs. Meeham U.S. Supreme Court (1899)
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 8 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
seeks immediate judicial remedy, relief, and restitution due to the Appellant’s
Article III natural common law protections against deprivation and theft of
restricted tribal lands and property, therein; of which, the Appellant makes demand
upon;
ARGUMENT
which a thing belongs to nobody becomes a property of the person who took
possession with intention of applying the rights of ownership, and foreclosure, not
being about Aboriginal Title6; therein, David Puryear, Justice, ignoring Aboriginal
Title, issued a moot judgment dismissing the appeal; however, the Appellant
superseding the order to Appellees et.al. right of possession and foreclosure; this
court and the lower courts not having jurisdictional authority to render any
6
The right of occupancy to a definable ancestral homeland held exclusive of other tribes since
time immemorial
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 9 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
decisions; A moot case is one which seeks to determine an abstract question which
Appellant maintains there is a constitutional challenge before the court that is black
and white; did the lower court have jurisdiction to render an order based on the
constitutional challenge?; the Appellant maintains the court does not; therefore, the
courts’ issued void ab initio judgments and orders7; why is the court attempting to
the Aboriginal Title is superior and the court is bound to uphold the
Aboriginal Superior Title; possession and title can not be separated; having
the opinion states that Appellant claims her tribal restricted lands and
filings, said tribal restricted lands and property is in tribal trust and governed by
extra constitutional, treaties and common law, to which federal law is beholden8;
7
"Where there is absence of jurisdiction, all administrative and judicial proceedings are a nullity
and confer no right, offer no protection, and afford no justification, and may be rejected upon
direct collateral attack." Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381; Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr.
9, 3L. Ed. 471.
8
Pokanoket vs. Brown University 2017
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 10 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
contrary to Appellees’ false assertions, Appellant never abandoned tribal
restricted lands and/or property, but is forced off at gunpoint; as witnessed by tribal
the opinion states the tribal restricted lands and property are located in
territory;
the tab information; the appeals court and the lower courts have blatantly ignored
A - General Warranty Deed, dated July 31, 2014; showing Appellant forever has
Superior Title of which she never abandoning tribal restricted lands and property;
being the original creditor; how is this a lawful and valid foreclosure?;
abandoning tribal restricted lands and property; how then can Appellees, et. al.
acquire tribal restricted lands and property which is not for sale by Appellant?;
29, 2018; lawfully established in original document to set off alleged debt inclusive
of said tribal restricted lands and property forever closing all accounts pertaining to
issuing a mortgage satisfaction and an estoppel of any resale of any notes on tribal
restricted lands and property; this bond is not cited, and is not returned; and
financially benefited from it, and why hadn’t the bond settle the case?;
courts; why?
E - Notice of Request for Clarity, filed and dated February 2, 2018; as established
clarity from trial court whether Sun West or Appellees et. al. is beneficiary of the
tender (bond); either one benefiting and/or the non return of the bond means the
alleged debt is satisfied; why is Appellant alienated from tribal restricted lands and
property?;
tender and bonds on public record denoting satisfactions and lawful collateral; this
H - Supersedeas Bond in the amount of $550,000, filed and dated March 31, 2018;
cash to supersede the eviction proceeding to stay the order; this bond was issued to
stay the eviction proceeding and to stay the order; the bond is not cited, and is not
demands cash to stay the eviction proceeding; is this court agreeing with trial court
acted rendering void ab initio judgments affording Appellee’s et. al. unlawful
J - Constructive Fraudulent Deed of Trust, County Clerk file stamp dated May 15,
upon providing tender, even up to two years after “foreclosure”; why does the
original documents, this lawful notice publicly brings notice to Appellant’s status
along with fees for violations; why is this lawful recognition being ignored?;
of her protected status, rendered tender, notices of restricted lands and property
assignment and private deed transfer to the Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas
tribal trust;
(b) by payment;
(c) by agreement; or
the time limit for such return has expired thus making the recipients lawfully
bonds to be ignored?; is the court approving the trial court’s ignorance of the tribal
trustee having responsibility to produce all accounting associated with this case;
not only has the tribal restricted lands and property been paid many times over, so
has this case; who has received financial benefit from tenders and bonds which
none are cited for defects or returned to Appellant?; why is Appellant continually
denied right to her sacred tribal restricted lands and property, being the tribal
restricted lands and property is satisfied several times over and in tribal trust?;
the opinion states the Appellant is only challenging the validity of the sale;
remains unanswered;
debt pertaining case; the courts issued void orders under the guise of possession
and foreclosure; and the Appellees et. al. are stealing tribal restricted lands and
determinations outside of their jurisdictional safe haven;9; the courts actions or lack
of actions continue to cause Appellant and her tribe further irreparable harm and
injury, alienating them from sacred tribal restricted lands and property; being in
violation of Article IV, Common Law and Treaties which are Supreme Law of the
Appellant maintains her demand for Article III jurisdiction, for the case to be
null and void or remanded to a true Article III court having a true Article III judge
assigned, with a jury of her status peers; reversing all lower court decisions,
making Appellant whole until there is a lawful determination by a true Article III
for the courts the case is about possession and foreclosure, for Appellant, it
national status, under the Tonkawa of Texas tribe; a separate and sovereign body
9
Whenever a judge acts where he/she does not have jurisdiction to act, the judge is engaged in an
act or acts of treason, U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406
(1980); Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821), and is in clear
violation of law.
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 16 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
unlawfully conferred natural10/personal, territorial and subject matter jurisdiction
where there’s no jurisdiction; noting the courts must have all three; yet are courts
whereas, the courts cite abstract question, the Appellant reiterates her
if the court finds an abstract question, legal precedent set forth denotes all
foreign national; has the courts provided a written explanation telling and showing
natural/personal, subject matter and territory?; court does not have lawful right to
make the determination that subject tribal restricted lands and property are located
in Williamson County and not Indian land because court lacks jurisdiction to do so;
therefore, the opinion that the tribal restricted lands and property are located in
Williamson County and not Indian lands is moot; all of Williamson County, Texas
said tribal restricted lands and property remains under Onawa of Taxas of
Tonkawa of Texas Tribal Trust; the court’s actions or lack thereof continues to
10
Title 1 United States Code, Section 1, Note 12. United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258,
91 L. Ed 884.
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 17 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
cause Appellant and her tribe further irreparable harm, alienating them from tribal
restricted lands and property of which she and her tribe holds Aboriginal Superior
Title;
the court’s opinion and order is unsigned being both illegal and unlawful;
adding to the continued issuance of null and void orders against Appellant;
litigation process; the matter continues to remain in the public locally, nationally
and internationally to the dismay of the Appellant, due to the irresponsible actions
of the courts;
Appellant, seeks justice in order to live a quiet and peaceable life, in which
she has a right to do so on said lawfully owned, sacred restricted tribal lands and
property;
Appellant reiterates her status as a tribal foreign national, natural and private
Indian Inhabitant; effectively removing Appellant and said tribal restricted lands
and property from the jurisdiction of the State of Texas, placing Appellant and said
lands and property in Article III jurisdiction; having natural common law
beneficiary of the tribe, sole beneficiary holding superior Aboriginal Title of which
lands and property, nor is Appellant’s subject tribal restricted lands and/or
never abandon said sacred tribal restricted lands and/or property; again as
armed guard considered a just war?; there are absolutely no just wars against
laws, constitution and treaties; the orders are in violation of your system’s laws;
Aboriginal Title of the tribal restricted lands and property which is privately
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 19 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
deeded and titled to Onawa of Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Tribal Trust where
continually being invaded, subject to liability under an alien tort claim; Appellees
et. al. continue to violate Appellant’s privacy including trespassing and theft of
intruding upon the solitude and seclusion of Appellant’s private tribal affairs and
concerns;
blood Indian lineal descendant, privately deeded and conveyed12 said tribal
restricted lands and property into the Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Indian
Tribal Trust.
defamation continues to cause great suffering and injury as a result of the courts
11
The Hague Convention on the Law Applicable to Trusts and on their Recognition, or Hague
Trust Convention is a multilateral treaty developed by the Hague Conference on Private
International Law on the Law Applicable to Trusts.
12
25 U.S. 2216
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 20 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
when any court violates the clean and unambiguous language of the
declaring the lower court orders and judgments null and void ab initio; further
days) return said tribal restricted lands and property in original condition with a
clean title and all attachments; furthermore, all case related documents
immediately be removed from the public records based on this being a private
matter;
13
State v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630
14
Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533-see citation
Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 21 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
Respectfully Submitted,
Pro Se Litigant
This petition complies with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9.4 i2D
because the Microsoft Word count of this petition is 4,012; the sections covered by
The font used in the body of the brief is no smaller than 14 points and font
For Appellant Petition for Panel Hearing for Third Court of Appeals
I hereby certify that a true and exact copy of the foregoing Appellant Brief has
been served with the Third Court of Appeals via electronic filing, KAMMIE
MARSHALL by email at KMarshall@OneAustinRealty(dot)com, and to
JASON J. HYDE by email at