Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Wilder v. MWS CAPITAL Court of Appeals Appellant Brief (File Stamped)
Wilder v. MWS CAPITAL Court of Appeals Appellant Brief (File Stamped)
03-18-00195-CV
27225974
THIRD COURT OF APPEALS
AUSTIN, TEXAS
9/3/2018 9:22 PM
JEFFREY D. KYLE
CLERK
Court of Appeals Cause Number 03-18-00195-CV
__________________________________________________________
Va Lyncia Wilder
Appellant
vs
Appellant’s Brief
__________________________________________________________________
Pro Se Litigant
__________________________________________________________________
Page
ARGUMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21
PRAYER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30
APPENDIX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36
CASES Page
CODES
TAKE NOTICE, Appellant is unlearned in law and requests the Court relax
and Judicial Jurisdiction Challenges; trial court entering a void ab initio judgment
Article III jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed due to trial courts having no
challenged, the court cannot proceed when it clearly appears that the court lacks
jurisdiction, the court has no authority to reach merits, but, rather, should dismiss
the action” 1; “The law requires proof of jurisdiction to appear on the record of the
her right to challenge jurisdiction and demands proof that the court has jurisdiction
to determine jurisdiction;
Appellant clearly states her status in Affidavits, Letters Rogatory and court filings
WILDER; stating the hearings held on January 30, 2018 at Williamson County,
Texas’ JP Court Precinct Four, Cause No.: 4EV180032 and March 29, 2019 at
Williamson County, Texas Court at Law #2, Cause No.: 18-0236-CC2; trial courts
entering final judgments and orders rendering a void ab initio judgment based on
case and jurisdiction over the parties to the case; if either are lacking in anyway,
the court is without power to decide the case; any order, decree or judgment other
Appellant, never relinquishes her unalienable status, therein never submits her
jurisdiction to the court; nonetheless, trial courts signs final judgments and/or
U.S.C. §177 Non Intercourse Act and 18 U.S.C. §1151, 1162; Appellant nor
Appellant’s Tribe never abandons lawfully owned tribal restricted lands and
property, known as [8525] Reggio Street, near Round Rock Territory, Texas
Republic, U.S.C. §1151; brings this brief to the Texas Third District Court of
3
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal 2d 280, 109 P2d 942 (1941)
Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 7 of 36
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
Appeals using codes to show violation of the Appellant in the Court’s own
Oral argument may help the Court better understand Appellant’s status and
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Does the Court and the trial courts have the right to declare jurisdiction where
The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge The Common Law
Title by actual, continuous, and exclusive use and occupancy for a “long time.”
Individuals may also establish Aboriginal Title, if their ancestors held title as
natural citizen of Tonkawa of Texas Tribe, which is a separate sovereign and body
politic;
Further Noting, The Nonintercourse Act (also known as the Indian Intercourse Act
Title in the United States; having the prohibition of the alienation of Indian lands
without the approval of the federal government;5 having its origins in the Royal
adding, the Nonintercourse Act did not pre-empt the states from legislating
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 lands and property as stated and described herein; this
4
Sioux Tribe v. U.S. 205 Ct.Cl. 148 (1974)
5
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 Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 9 of 36
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
right cannot be terminated; the power over inheritance in the absence of
Congressional Legislation rests with the Indian Tribe, but the Congress itself
cannot disturb rights, which have vested under tribal law and customs;6
recognition of a First Nation Peoples or the sovereign and body politic the
Indian Inhabitant need NOT have federal 501(c)3 recognition; making Aborigines
UNDRIP, UDHR, ADRIP, etc; being citizens of a separate and distinct sovereign
and body politic, NOT 14th Amendment “Chattel” U.S. Citizens, devoid of
unalienable rights; having only privileges extended or not extended by the U.S. and
its body politic; inclusive of the states; “Indian Nations had always been
original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil, from time
immemorial!”
6
Jones vs. Meeham U.S. Supreme Court (1899)
Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 10 of 36
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
The Appellant, in violation of her unalienable rights, is not afforded due process;
thus, now seeks immediate judicial remedy, relief, and restitution due to the
status; having natural common law protections against deprivation and theft of
restricted lands and property, therein; of which, the Appellant makes demand upon;
ISSUES PRESENTED
According to the U.S. Constitution, can trial courts now usurp authority over
Aborigine American Indian, foreign national, non resident inhabitants, the tribe, a
alienating them from their lawfully owned sacred tribal restricted lands and
void ab initio judgments and orders that stand; making Appellate beholding to the
void ab initio judgments and orders sanctioned under the Color of Law?
While Appellant is pro se and not savvy pertaining legal procedures, courtroom
procedures and tactical maneuvers, Appellant invokes her rightful Article III
jurisdictional status; not giving up rights to a jury of her status peers although she
Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas tribal trust where it remains to date; prior to the deed
transfer, On Q Financial, Inc’s alleged Promissory Note being fully satisfied makes
the deed absolute; with Appellant and Appellant’s heirs having Superior Title,
The trial courts and Appellees are responsible for constructive fraud upon the
court; allowing execution of alienation of restricted tribal lands and property based
on January 30, 2018, initiating the unlawful tribal alienation from restricted lands
and property; Appellant appealed to County requesting a jury of her status peers;
Appellant has never given up her rights to a jury trial of her status peers,
nevertheless, the courts continuously deny the right thereof; Judicial Officer Laura
Hobbs no Judicial Officer Laura Barker have the power or authority to issue any
excluded, ignored or rejected; to add insult to injury, Judicial Officer Laura Barker
attempts to shake Appellant down demanding $48,693 in “hard” cash only for
Appellant; issuing a void judgment therein invoking power when she has no power
to make decisions;
The void ab initio judgments and orders results in Appellant and Appellant’s Tribe
being forcibly removed from their restricted lands and property at gunpoint; even
Appellees, giving the appearance or semblance without the substance or legal right,
willfully and knowingly deprived the Appellant of all rights and privileges
status;
two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person
Even though the courts have no lawful or proven jurisdiction, Appellant, having
subjugating her status, by providing bonds to satisfy any claims, legal fees and
court fees; the case is bonded and indemnified making the courts stewards of
instruments to discharge and set off any alleged debt and bring a resolution
between the parties; the bonds will resolve conflicts between the parties in this
matter;
With clean hands and clean heart and without rescinding jurisdiction or status,
Appellant acts in honor providing several tenders and bonds totaling approximately
1.3 million dollars; never cited for any defects nor returned from the alleged loan
which the case was built; having Affidavits un-rebutted by trial court and
Appellees;
STATEMENT OF FACTS
Whereas, the Appellant’s tribe having rights to subject lands and property is a
sovereign and body politic, protected under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act
(FSIA), within the borders of the United States of America; being the owner, title
holder, and owner of all related deeds pertaining to restricted lands and property
known as [8525] Reggio Street, Near Round Rock Territory, Texas State Republic,
Indian Territory, 18 U.S.C. 1151; Appellant and Appellant Tribe is an Aborigine
tribe, band, clan, family or entity; having given lawful notice in the state of Texas,
and conducts activities within the Texas State area; as used in this brief,
“Appellant” shall also include the Onawa Taxas and Tonkawa of Texas Tribal
Trust, and one, some or all of the Tribal Trust Aborigine tribes located within the
subject restricted lands and property, and which had members that had inhabited
and settled upon the subject restricted lands and property; Appellant lawfully
assigns, transfers and privately deeds subject restricted lands and property to the
in the court’s jurisdiction and the court’s not having subject matter jurisdiction;
trial courts is not proving jurisdiction to decide the matter to allow forcible detainer
Texas courts, Judges, Judicial Officials, et al. and all others continue to ignore;
Therein, Appellant does not subjugate her status, acting in honor to provide legal
tenders to discharge and set off alleged debts, court fees, attorney fees and other
legal fees associated with this matter; Williamson County, Texas Courts, Judges,
Judicial Officials, et. al and all others are dishonoring and breaking their own laws;
Further, all Trustees and Substitute Trustees are notified by Appellant of their
tender even after foreclosure up to two years; although tender was rendered,
Appellees are responsible for working collectively with others to publicly slander
commerce and promote the constructive fraud and theft of Appellant’s restricted
lands and property, forcing Appellant and Appellant’s Tribal members to alienate
TAB A
TAB B
restricted lands and property; having never abandoned restricted lands or property;
gunpoint;
TAB C
TAB D
Notice of Offer of Tender mailed to Judy Hobbs USPS Certified No.: 7015 1730
0001 4043 8673; court has notice that Appellant wants to resolve the conflict
TAB E
Notice of Request for Clarity to Judge Judy Hobbs; to establish the beneficiaries of
Appellant’s Indemnity Bond; the bond is not cited for defects and remains in the
beneficiaries;
TAB F
Filed UCC (Records); notice given to courts of Appellant’s lawful tenders and
TAB H
Appellant’s Supersedeas Bond; to bond case and stay final judgment to forcibly
remove Appellant and Appellant’s Tribe from tribal restricted lands and property;
TAB I
Judgment with Judicial Officer Laura Barker’s signature demanding “hard” cash
TAB J
Does Court and trial courts having no lawful or proven jurisdiction, or have the
All treaties remain lawful as well as the supreme law of the land and states must
honor them;
Appellant is a natural citizen of an Aborigine American Indian tribe and is not 14th
Appellant reserves her natural rights at all levels, submits multiple instruments to
discharge and set off any alleged debt being un-rebutted and not returned citing
defects; subject restricted tribal lands and property are tendered, assigned,
Trust, and;
Not having lawful or proven jurisdiction, trial courts grant judgments and orders
against Appellant who is not a 14th Amendment “chattle” Citizen; therein not in the
Court’s jurisdiction, making the judgments and orders void ab initio; reiterating,
unlawfully, Judicial Officer Laura Barker demanded $48,693 in “hard” cash only
pertaining the civil proceeding before the Court that affords Appellees theft by
fraud of lawful Tribal Restricted Lands and Property inhabited by Appellant and
owner Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Tribal Trust, under the Color of Law,
reiterating Court’s lack of judicial jurisdiction; further reminding the Court that it
and the trial courts have judicial duty beholden to Oath of Office to remain true to
its own laws and treaties, as well, the supreme law of the land; having federal
prescribed under the Law of the Nations, Treaties, Federal Law, Common Law;
devoid of ALL biases; environmental and systematic racism and human rights
jurisdiction does NOT exist; judicial protocol denoting the trust responsibility is a
legal principle that the Supreme Court noted in United States v Mitchell (1989) is
“the undisputed existence of a general trust relationship between the United States
mentioned above;
Peoples of the Americas who sojourn throughout Tonkawa lands and beyond;
having members who occupied the subject restricted tribal lands and property from
entitlement to said restricted lands and property has never been and is not
terminated or abandoned; Appellant, holds the deed, transfers and assigns all
rights, titles and interest to Appellant’s American Indian Tribe, under 18 U.S.C.
§1151, 1162, Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Tribal Trust in 2014 and the tribe
is the lawful receiver; thereby, owner of [8525] Reggio Street, Near Round Rock
The U.S. Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs has made it very
clear that Tribes are sovereign governments and trust lands are a primary focus of
By purporting to authorize the taking of the Indian restricted lands and property by
the Appellees, the Williamson County Texas Judicial Courts intends to, and does,
authorize and cause the Appellees to permanently possess the Indian restricted
lands and property, attempting to extinguish the aboriginal title in violation of the
Nonintercourse Act; the Appellees and Williamson County Texas Judicial Courts
continue to violate the Appellant’s International and Federal common law rights of
aborigine title to and possession of the aborigine restricted tribal lands and
property;
Citing, the lack of jurisdiction alone and the void ab initio judgments and/or orders,
without relinquishing Appellant’s and Appellant’s Tribe status, several tenders are
provided in an act of good faith, with clean hands, ultimately an act of peace
the land and blood is shed on the land, tricked by colonizers under gunpoint,
Appellant finds herself in the same predicament; under trickery, extortion, threats,
7
Indian Reorganization Act of June 18, 1934, or the Wheeler-Howard Act, was U.S. federal
legislation that dealt with the status of Native Americans. It was the centerpiece of what has
been often called the “Indian New Deal.”
8
See, 25 U.S.C. Bureau Indian Affairs; 23 U.S.C. §§ 177 et seq.
Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 23 of 36
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
coercion and duress; Appellant does everything in honor to protect the restricted
tribal lands and property; therefore in doing so, Appellant and Appellant’s Tribe
should not be alienated and/or dispossessed from restricted tribal lands and
property; Appellant’s tenders are issued to Sun West Mortgage in the amount of
$500,000.00 since on or about January 28, 2018 and $505,000.00 since on or about
March 31, 2018; the debt has been accepted for value and returned for value for
settlement and closure, exempt from levy and deposited to the United States
Treasury and charged the same to VA LYNCIA R. WILDER; having filed lawful
lawful tenders, offers of tender or bonds and demands “hard” cash only where
Appellant delivers approximately $1.3 million in lawful tender to set off an alleged
9
U.C.C. §3-603, 3-604, 3-605
Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 24 of 36
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
beyond amount of alleged debts that is over $5 of the amount must be returned
Appellant;
In addition to the lack of jurisdiction, the courts are in violation of their own laws;
the constructive fraudulent security deed; Appellant demands the tribal restricted
lands and property be immediately reinstated and conveyed back to its rightful
owner, the Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Tribal Trust, with free and clear
the trial courts; Appellant’s Affidavits and/or filings as recorded in Clerk’s records
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
AS FOREMENTIONED,
and natural citizen of Tonkawa of Texas Autochthon Peoples, making void any/all
2. Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Tribal Trust; being rightful and lawful
owners of said restricted lands and property; making void any/all territorial and
National status, several times over, demands Article III Court jurisdiction; making
void ab initio any judgment the Court has made under the Color of Law; being
and can be attacked in any proceedings in any court where the validity of the
Further declaring, if a court grants relief, which under the circumstances it hasn’t
any authority to grant, its judgment is to that extent void.11 And a void judgment is
NO judgment at all and is without lawful effect12; by which, the Appellant makes
DEMAND upon;
Decreeing, a court must vacate any judgment entered in excess of its jurisdiction13
jurisdiction over the subject matter of the case; being Tonkawa of Texas Tribe’s
restricted lands and property, and jurisdiction over the parties to the case; being an
Aborigine American Indian Inhabitant, having foreign national status (personal and
territorial jurisdiction); if either one is lacking in any way, the court is without
10
See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed 608: Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US
714, 24 L ed 565; Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 I ED 897; Windsor v.
McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914; McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343
61 L ed 608
11
1 Freeman on Judgments 1120c.
12
Jordan v. Gilligan, 500. 2d 701 (6th Ctr. 1974).
13
Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d 645 (1st Cir 1972)
Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 27 of 36
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
power to decide the case; any order, decree or judgment other than a dismissal by
such court is void ab initio14 by which, the Appellant makes DEMAND upon;
preventing the trial courts from unlawfully demeaning and reducing the Appellant
intervention; vacating the trial court’s void ab initio judgments and/or orders and
issuing a permanent injunction order to forever cease and desist all actions by the
14
See Abellerira v District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal. 2d 280, 109 P, 2d 942 (1941)
Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 28 of 36
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
FURTHERMORE, The Appellant makes claim of constitutional and judicial
Law;
Whereas, Judge Judy Hobbs, Judicial Officer Laura Barker, and all others, et al., in
breach of their Oath of Office, acts in dishonor; disregarding the court’s lack of
personal, territorial, and subject matter jurisdiction; as well, ignoring the Plenary
Power Doctrine, Indian Nonintercourse Act, Tribal Sovereignty, and Federal Trust
In doing so, perpetrating fraud upon the court, the Appellate and the Appellant’s
Tribe who are the Tonkawa of Texas Aborigine Peoples; thereby, allow theft of
restricted tribal lands and property and the forced removal at gunpoint from said
“It is well settled that an Indian Tribe had the power to prescribe the manner of
descent and distribution of the property of its members and in the absence of
unwritten customs and usages or through written laws of the tribe. This power
Indian Tribe may restrict the descent of property on the basis of Indian blood or
tribal membership and may provide for the escheat of property to the tribe where
there are no recognized heirs. The authority of an Indian tribe in the matter of
inheritance is clearly recognized by the United States Supreme Court in the case of
Jones vs. Meehan. The opinion of the Supreme Court in Jones vs. Meehan sites a
long series of cases in Federal and State court which likewise upholds the validity
of tribal laws and customs of inheritance. (When the Congress does not act, no law
runs on an Indian reservation save the Indian Tribal Law and Customs.) The clear
refutation of the theory that in absence of law, plenary power over Indian Affairs
rests with the Interior Department. The case holds not only that power over
Tribe, but the Congress itself can not disturb rights which have vested under tribal
law and customs. (Handbook of Federal Indian Law With References: Tribal
inhabiting their restricted lands and rights to Aborigine restricted land and property
titles and deeds, and reverse the trial court’s judgments and orders of forcible
detainment for dispossessory and remand for merits proceedings on these claims;
the Court should also issue a writ of injunction to protect jurisdiction over the
Appellant and Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Tribal Trust’s restricted tribal
Declaring that the trial courts judgments are void ab initio, immediately returning
tribal restricted lands and property with clear title and deed to Appellant and
Appellant’s Tribe; the amount by which the value of the taken restricted lands and
property was diminished by any damage, including but not limited to piping and
cultured fruit trees and vegetation, all garden boxes and natural food sources, and
other environmental hazards or destruction; the value of all minerals and other
resources taken from the subject restricted lands and property, equal to the price of
such resources in their final marketable state; and any diminution in value of the
taken and transferred from the Appellant and Appellant’s Tribe in violation of
Federal and State law, and that any so-called taking or transferring of Indian Lands
Declaring that Appellant and Appellant’s Tribe are the owners of, and have the
legal, lawful and equitable title and deed, as well as the right to forever use and
possess, the Aborigine restricted lands and property claimed, held or sold by
described herein this brief; requiring an accounting by each Appellee, with interest,
as described herein this brief; requiring the Appellees et. al and all others to
disgorge the benefits they receive from their unlawful use of Appellant’s signature
relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, Law Advocate fees and costs of
appropriate for the constructive fraud upon the court and unmitigated audacity to
disregard Constitution, treaties and common laws under the disguise of the Color
of Law;
mentioned above;
Respectfully Submitted,
Pro Se Litigant
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, to Kammie
Marshall by email at KMarshall@OneAustinRealty(dot)com, and to
MWS CAPITAL, LLC, JASON J. HYDE, KAMMIE MARSHALL AND
MATTHEW SHAW by U.S.P.S. First Class Mail Certified Mail and addressed to;
This brief complies with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure 9-4 because
the sections covered by the rule contain no more than 27,000 words;
The font used in the body of the brief is no smaller than 14 points and font used in
TAB
G Filed UCC (Records), dated January 22, 2018, February 10, 2018,
March 15, 2018 and May 2, 2018