Sie sind auf Seite 1von 36

ACCEPTED

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

__________________________________________________________

In the Court of Appeals


Third District of Texas
Austin, Texas
__________________________________________________________________

Va Lyncia Wilder
Appellant
vs

MWS Capital LLC and Kammie Marshall, Agent


Appellees

Original Proceeding from the


Justice of Peace, Precinct Four in Williamson County, Texas
Judge Judy Hobbs, Presiding
__________________________________________________________________

Appellant’s Brief
__________________________________________________________________

Name: Va Lyncia Wilder aka Mahal Netis


Address: [8525] Reggio Street
Round Rock Territory, Texas Republic (w/o US Territory)

Telephone No.: 512-666-8089


Email Address: already(dot)done(dot)thanks@gmail(dot)com

Pro Se Litigant

__________________________________________________________________

ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED


__________________________________________________________________

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 1 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL

Pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 38.1(a), appellant presents


the following list of all parties and names and addresses of its counsel;

Appellant/Appellant; Counsel: Pro se

Va Lyncia Wilder aka Mahal Netis


[8525] Reggio Street
Round Rock Territory,
Texas Republic (w/o US Territory)
Ph 512-666-8089

Appellees Trial Court Counsel;

MWS CAPITAL, LLC JASON J. HYDE


5766 Balcones Drive Attorney at Law
Suite 203 SBOT - 24027083
Austin, Texas 78731 512 West MLK Jr, Blvd
Austin, Texas 78701
AND Phone: 512-200-4080

KAMMIE MARSHALL, AGENT Registered Agent;


5766 Balcones Drive MWS Capital, LLC
Suite 203 Matthew Shaw
Austin, Texas 78731 7600 Burnet Road
KMarshall@OneAustinRealty(dot)com Suite 106
Austin, Texas 78756

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 2 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ------------------------------------------ 02

TABLE OF CONTENTS ---------------------------------------------------------------- 03

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ------------------------------------------------------------- 04

STATEMENT OF THE CASE ---------------------------------------------------------- 06

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENTS ------------------------------- 08

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ---------------------------------------------------- 08

ISSUES PRESENTED -------------------------------------------------------------------- 11

STATEMENT OF FACTS --------------------------------------------------------------- 15

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT --------------------------------------------------- 19

ARGUMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 21

PRAYER ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 30

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------------- 34

CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE --------------------------------------------------- 35

APPENDIX -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 36

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 3 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Page

Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026 ------------------------------------------------------------- 06


Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533 ------------------------------------------------------ 06
Abelleira v. District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal 2d 280, 109 P2d 942 (1941) ----- 07
Sioux Tribe v. U. S., 205 Ct.Cl. 148 (1974) ----------------------------------------- 09
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State,
470 U.S. 226 (1985) ------------------------------------------------------------- 09
Jones vs. Meeham U.S. Supreme Court (1899) ------------------------------------- 10
United States v Mitchell (1989) ------------------------------------------------------- 21
See Rose v. Himely (1808) 4 Cranch 241, 2 L ed ---------------------------------- 27
Pennoyer v. Neff (1877) 95 US 714, 24 L ed 565 -------------------------------- 27
Thompson v. Whitman (1873) 18 Wall 457, 21 I ED 897 -------------------------27
Windsor v. McVeigh (1876) 93 US 274, 23 L ed 914 ----------------------------27
McDonald v. Mabee (1917) 243 US 90, 37 Sct 343 61 L ed 608 ---------------- 27
1
1 Freeman on Judgments 1120c ----------------------------------------------------- 27
1
Jordan v. Gilligan, 500. 2d 701 (6th Ctr. 1974) ------------------------------------ 27
1
Lubben v. Selective Service System Local Bd. No. 27, 453 F.2d
645 (1st Cir 1972) ----------------------------------------------------------------27
Abellerira v District Court of Appeal, 17 Cal. 2d 280, 109 P, 2d
942 (1941) ------------------------------------------------------------------------ 28

STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

Royal Proclamation of 1763 ---------------------------------------------------------- 09


Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 ------------------------------------ 09
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) ----------------------------------------------- 10
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) --------------------------------- 10
The American Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP) ---------------------------------------------- 10
Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) ------------------------------------------15
Indian Reorganization Act -------------------------------------------------------------23
Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act ------------------------ 23

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 4 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES (Cont)

International Covenant on Economics, Social and


Cultural Rights (ICESCR) --------------------------------------------------- 28

CODES

25 U.S.C. §177 Non Intercourse Act ----------------------------------------------- 06


18 U.S.C. §1151, 1162 --------------------------------------------------------------- 06
25 U.S.C. Bureau Indian Affairs ---------------------------------------------------- 22
23 U.S.C. §177 -------------------------------------------------------------------------22
U.C.C. §3-603, 3-604, 3-605 -------------------------------------------------------- 24

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 5 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
STATEMENT OF THE CASE

TAKE NOTICE, Appellant is unlearned in law and requests the Court relax

standards; case involving a void ab initio judgment claim, Constitution Challenges

and Judicial Jurisdiction Challenges; trial court entering a void ab initio judgment

against Appellant having no authority to decide the case based on Appellant’s

lawfully declared Aborigine American Indian natural status and invocation of

Article III jurisdiction, the case should be dismissed due to trial courts having no

power to execute judgment based on Appellant’s jurisdiction; “Once jurisdiction is

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

administrative agency and all administrative proceedings”2; Appellant exercises

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

as a foreign national, natural citizen and inhabitant, Aborigine American Indian of

the Tonkawa of Texas Tribe-NOT 14TH AMENDMENT “chattel” CITIZEN; a non


1
Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026
2
Hagans v. Lavine, 415 U. S. 533
Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 6 of 36
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
taxed, Aborigine American Indian and authorized representative of VA LYNCIA

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

jurisdiction regarding Appellant’s declared natural status; a court must have

jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction, jurisdiction over the subject matter of the

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

than a dismissal by such court is void ab initio;3

Appellant, never relinquishes her unalienable status, therein never submits her

jurisdiction to the court; nonetheless, trial courts signs final judgments and/or

orders granting Appellees possession of restricted tribal lands and property,

forcibly removing Appellant and Appellant’s Aborigine Tribe in violation of 25

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

government, not subjugating Appellant’s jurisdiction;

STATEMENT REGARDING ORAL ARGUMENT

Oral argument may help the Court better understand Appellant’s status and

standing which is significant to aiding the decision of the Court;

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION

Does the Court and the trial courts have the right to declare jurisdiction where

there’s no jurisdiction, alienating an Aborigine American Indian from their

restricted lands and property, abolishing their Aboriginal Title;

The United States was the first jurisdiction to acknowledge The Common Law

Doctrine of Aboriginal Title (also known as “Original Indian Title” or “Indian

Right of Occupancy”); native American Tribes and Nations establish Aboriginal

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

individuals. Unlike other jurisdictions, the content of Aboriginal Title is not

limited to historical or traditional land uses. Aboriginal title may NOT be

alienated, EXCEPT to the federal government or with approval of Congress;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 8 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
Aboriginal title is distinct from recognized Indian title, where the United States

federal government recognizes tribal land by treaty or otherwise. Aboriginal title is

not a prerequisite to recognized title; 4Appellant is a foreign national inhabitant

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

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;5 having its origins in the Royal

Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783;

adding, the Nonintercourse Act did not pre-empt the states from legislating

additional restraints on alienation of Aborigine American Indian lands;

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

Further, declaring the Aborigine American Indian Inhabitants’ identity derives

from birthright, NOT a fictitious blood quantum or a foreign government’s

recognition of a First Nation Peoples or the sovereign and body politic the

Aborigine American Indian Inhabitants belong; thus, a full-Aborigine American

Indian Inhabitant need NOT have federal 501(c)3 recognition; making Aborigines

“wards of the states,” to be identified as a full blooded Aborigine American Indian

Inhabitant of their rightful lands, as recognized by Federal Law, Common Law,

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

considered as distinct, independent political communities, retaining their

original natural rights, as the undisputed possessors of the soil, from time

immemorial!”

Supreme Court Chief Justice John Marshall

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

Appellant’s protected Aborigine American Indian Inhabitant, foreign national

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

“separate sovereign and body politic”, in violation of the Nonintercourse Act;

alienating them from their lawfully owned sacred tribal restricted lands and

property, declaring jurisdiction where they have no jurisdiction, therein issuing

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

continues to be denied a jury trial; thus causing extreme undue hardship to

Appellant and Appellant’s Tribe;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 11 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
In cultural tradition, Appellant deeds restricted lands and property to the Onawa

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,

FOREVER as stated in the General Warranty Deed;

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 a fictitious debt under Color of Law; without having lawful or proven

jurisdiction, Judge Judy Hobbs in the Justice of Peace Court, Precinct 4,

Williamson County, Texas issues original judgment/order/decree against Appellant

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

Barker, at the Williamson County Court at Law #2, issued a final

judgment/order/decree against Appellant on March 29, 2018; Neither Judge udy

Hobbs no Judicial Officer Laura Barker have the power or authority to issue any

decision due to the court’s lack of jurisdiction making the judgment/order/decree

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 12 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
void ab initio; which allows Appellees, under Color of Law, to proceed with

alienation of tribal restricted lands and property;

Appellant’s lawful status continues to be ignored, critical evidence continues to be

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

security; proceeding with issuing a forcible detainer and dispossessory against

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

while having a supersedes bond for the appeal in place;

Appellees, giving the appearance or semblance without the substance or legal right,

willfully and knowingly deprived the Appellant of all rights and privileges

ordained by the Creator as secured in the Constitution; subsequently instituting

punishment, pain and penalties based on Appellant’s Aborigine Foreign National

status;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 13 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
Appellees participate in the conspiracy against Appellant’s unalienable rights; if

two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any person

in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District in the free exercise

or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of

the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;

Even though the courts have no lawful or proven jurisdiction, Appellant, having

tendered alleged debt, continue attempting to honoring the courts, without

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

company Sun West Mortgage and/or trial courts to date;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 14 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
Appellant presents Affidavits and filings to the courts being critical evidence on

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

Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Tribal Trust;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 15 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
Appellant declares status as a natural Aborigine American Indian and her not being

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

upon an Aborigine American Indian;

Appellant continues to relentlessly invoke Article III in which Williamson County

Texas courts, Judges, Judicial Officials, et al. and all others continue to ignore;

continuing to reduce Appellant’s status to 14th Amended “chattel” Citizenship,

thereby operating underneath the Color of Law;

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

removal prior to the constructive fraudulent foreclosure and sale; trustee’s

constructive fraudulent Deed of Trust states Appellant is reinstated by providing

tender even after foreclosure up to two years; although tender was rendered,

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 16 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
Appellees work collectively with others to promote the constructive fraud and theft

of Appellant’s restricted lands and property;

Appellees are responsible for working collectively with others to publicly slander

Appellant’s name, publicly humiliate Appellant, interrupt Appellant’s trade and

commerce and promote the constructive fraud and theft of Appellant’s restricted

lands and property, forcing Appellant and Appellant’s Tribal members to alienate

restricted lands and property at gunpoint;

Appellant appears by special appearance to all courts; having presented Exhibits,

all of which were denied; especially the following;

TAB A

General Warranty Deed establishing Appellant having Superior Title of restricted

lands and property; having never abandoned Superior Title;

TAB B

1099a establishing Appellant as creditor of fictitious loan associated with tribal

restricted lands and property; having never abandoned restricted lands or property;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 17 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
not voluntarily vacating restricted lands and/or property, but forcibly removed at

gunpoint;

TAB C

Private Indemnity Bond in the possession of Judge Judy Hobbs without

establishing clarity of beneficiaries;

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

through the discharge and set off of the alleged debt;

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

possession of the court; being held responsible without providing clarity of

beneficiaries;

TAB F

Judgment with Judge Judy Hobb’s signature granting unlawful possession of

restricted tribal lands and property;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 18 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
TAB G

Filed UCC (Records); notice given to courts of Appellant’s lawful tenders and

bonds lawfully filed with Texas UCC;

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

only in violation of law; granting Appellees unlawful possession of Appellant’s

restricted lands and property;

TAB J

Constructive fraudulent Deed of Trust showing in paragraph 10 that Appellant can

reinstate by providing tender even after foreclosure up to two years;

SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT

Does Court and trial courts having no lawful or proven jurisdiction, or have the

right to forcibly remove Appellate, an Aborigine American Indian, a natural citizen

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 19 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
of Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas tribe, sovereign body and politic, from

restricted lands and property; lawfully owned in tribal trust?

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

Amendment “Chattel” under the Color of Law;

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,

transferred and privately deeded to Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas Tribal

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

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 20 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
for security and proceeds with issuing a forcible detainer and dispossessory against

Appellant, again making the judgment void ab initio;

ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES

Therein, Appellant presents her compliments to the appropriate judicial authority

of the Texas Third District Court of Appeals, requesting a constitutional injunction

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

Indian trust responsibility concerning the peaceable co-existent relationship

between the Aborigine American Indian Inhabitants and U.S. Government as

prescribed under the Law of the Nations, Treaties, Federal Law, Common Law;

devoid of ALL biases; environmental and systematic racism and human rights

violations; NOT having the authority to exact judicial jurisdiction where

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

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 21 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
and the Indian People;” being the most significant and motivating concepts in

federal Indian law;

Appellant herein repeats, restates and incorporates by reference the allegations as

mentioned above;

Appellant is a natural citizen in interest to the Tonkawa of Texas Aborigine

Peoples of the Americas who sojourn throughout Tonkawa lands and beyond;

having members who occupied the subject restricted tribal lands and property from

time immemorial; Appellant’s tribe is a pre-colonial era aborigine people whose

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

Territory, Texas State Republic;

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

Tribal authority; current federal policy of Tribal self-determination is built upon

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 22 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
the principles Congress set forth in the Indian Reorganization Act7 and reaffirmed

in the Indian Self-Determination and Education Assistance Act.8

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

between two governments; in reminiscent of Appellant’s ancestors who lived on

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

$44,094.55 since on or about November 6, 2017 and $246,083.16 since on or about

February 15, 2018; to Williamson County Texas Courts 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

tenders on Appellant’s Texas UCC accordingly;9 of which trial courts do no rebut

lawful tenders, offers of tender or bonds and demands “hard” cash only where

there is no cash to demand; additionally, Judge Judy Hobbs is in receipt of

Appellant’s Indemnity Bond and Offer of Tender with a Notice of Clarity

requesting clarity of who will benefit from the bonds;

Appellant delivers approximately $1.3 million in lawful tender to set off an alleged

debt; in attempt to tender tribal restricted lands and property valued at

approximately $255,000.00; citing U.C.C. codes, payment tendered above and

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 Appellant’s continued deprivation of rights to redemption as stated in law and

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

title and deed;

In addition, Appellant’s tenders, offers of tender and bonds remain un-rebutted by

the trial courts; Appellant’s Affidavits and/or filings as recorded in Clerk’s records

remain un-rebutted; which includes Appellant’s notifications to all courts of her

protected status, rendered tenders, notices of restricted lands and property

assignment and private deed transfer to the Onawa Taxas of Tonkawa of Texas

tribal trust;

1. Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit;

2. An un-rebutted Affidavit stands as truth in Commerce;

3. An un-rebutted Affidavit becomes Judgment in Commerce;

4. An Affidavit of Truth, under commercial Law, can only be satisfied;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 25 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
(a) through a rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, point by point;

(b) by payment;

(c) by agreement; or

(d) by resolution of a jury by the rules of common law;

The time limit for such return has expired thus making the recipients lawfully

responsible for these instruments;

AS FOREMENTIONED,

1. The Appellant is a natural full-blooded Aborigine American Indian Inhabitant

and natural citizen of Tonkawa of Texas Autochthon Peoples, making void any/all

personal jurisdiction the trial courts have erroneously evoked;

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

subject matter jurisdictions the trial courts have erroneously evoked;

3. Appellant, having declared her Aborigine American Indian Inhabitant - Foreign

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

contrary to the Appellant’s lawful status;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 26 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
THEREBY, Declaring, any order that exceeds the jurisdiction of the court is void,

and can be attacked in any proceedings in any court where the validity of the

judgment comes into issue10

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

by which, the Appellant makes DEMAND upon;

CONCLUDING, A court must have jurisdiction to determine jurisdiction,

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;

FUTHERMORE, Appellant does not relinquish her status as full blooded

Aborigine American Indian Inhabitant, having foreign national status; therein,

NEVER submitting her jurisdiction to the Courts;

NONETHELESS, the Appellant’s steadfast convictions is not stopping nor

preventing the trial courts from unlawfully demeaning and reducing the Appellant

to a 14th Amendment “chattel” Citizen under the jurisdiction of a foreign body

politic; therein, issuing a void ab initio judgment;

ACCORDINGLY, Appellant, Va Lyncia Wilder aka Mahal Netis, Chief Law

Advocate for Tonkawa of Texas Aborigine Peoples and Authorized Representative

of VA LYNCIA WILDER, makes constitutional demand for immediate judicial

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

Appellees and all others;

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

violations of International Covenant on Economics, Social and Cultural Rights

(ICESCR), the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR), United Nations

Declaration on the Rights of the Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP), The American

Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP), Draft of the Inter-

American Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; as well, Common

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

Relationship, every state is bound; having the “duty to protect” Aborigine

American Indian, Tribes, and Nations;

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

restricted tribal lands and property;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 29 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

“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

contrary legislation by the Congress. Such power may be exercised through

unwritten customs and usages or through written laws of the tribe. This power

extends to personal property as well to real property. By virtue of this authority, an

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

inheritance in the absence of Congressional Legislation rests with the Indian

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

Control of Descent and Distribution, Page 139 - 141).

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 30 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
The Courts should uphold Federal laws and treaties when it comes to Aborigine’s

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

land and property;

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

electrical, in ground sprinkler system, all fixed appliances, alarms, fixtures,

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

restricted lands and property as a result of the taking of such resources;

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 31 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
Further, declaring that the Indian Restricted Lands and Property are unlawfully

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

and Property is void ab initio;

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

Appellees et al. and all others;

Awarding such declaratory and injunctive relief as necessary to effectuate

Appellant and Appellant’s Tribe’s right to possession, to which the proof

demonstrates their entitlement;

Awarding Appellant and Appellant’s Tribe damages, and interest thereon, as

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

in acquiring unlawful purchases, sales and possessions of the subject restricted

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 32 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
lands and property, with interest; having removed Appellant’s name from public

records including title, during litigation procedures;

WHEREFORE, Appellant demands judgment against Appellees for injunctive

relief and actual, special, compensatory damages, Law Advocate fees and costs of

the litigation in an amount determined by Appellant’s Tribal Violation Fee

Schedule in addition to amount deemed by the Court to be just, fair, and

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;

Appellant herein repeats, restates and incorporates by reference the allegations as

mentioned above;

Respectfully Submitted,

/s/ Va Lyncia Wilder


By _________________________________________

Name Va Lyncia Wilder aka Mahal Netis


Address [8525] Reggio Street
Round Rock Territory,
Texas Republic (w/o US Territory)
Telephone No 512-666-8089
Email Address already(dot)done(dot) thanks@gmail(dot)com

Pro Se Litigant

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 33 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

For Appellant Brief for Third Court of Appeals

The undersigned certifies and declares as follows;

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;

Appellees: Trial Court Counsel:


MWS CAPITAL, LLC JASON J. HYDE
5766 Balcones Drive Attorney at Law
Suite 203 SBOT: 24027083
Austin, Texas 78731 512 W. MLK Jr., Blvd.
No.: 7015 1730 0001 4053 2494 Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-200-4080
AND No.: 7015 1730 0001 4053 2470

KAMMIE MARSHALL, AGENT Registered Agent:


5766 Balcones Drive MWS Capital, LLC
Suite 203 Matthew Shaw
Austin, Texas 78731 7600 Burnet Road
KMarshall@OneAustinRealty(dot)com Suite 106
No.: 7015 1730 0001 4053 2487 Austin, Texas 78756
No.: 7015 1730 0001 4053 2463

Sworn under my hand and seal

On this the 3rd day of September, 2018

/s/ Va Lyncia Wilder


By: ___________________________________________
Mahal Netis aka Va Lyncia Wilder
Chief and Natural Citizen of Tonkawa of Texas Tribe
Aborigine American Indian Inhabitant

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 34 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

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

the footnotes is no smaller than 12 points;

Sworn under my hand and seal

On this the 3rd day of September, 2018

/s/ Va Lyncia Wilder


By: ___________________________________________
Mahal Netis aka Va Lyncia Wilder
Chief and Natural Citizen of Tonkawa of Texas Tribe
Aborigine American Indian Inhabitant

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 35 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
APPENDIX

TAB

A General Warranty Deed, dated July 31, 2014

B 1099a, dated 2017

C Private Indemnity Bond, file stamped dated January 29, 2018

D Offer of Tender, registered mail dated January 29, 2018

E Notice of Request for Clarity, dated February 2, 2018

F Judgment of JP Court, dated January 30, 2018

G Filed UCC (Records), dated January 22, 2018, February 10, 2018,
March 15, 2018 and May 2, 2018

H Supersedeas Bond, dated March 31, 2018

I Judgment of County Court, dated March 29, 2018

J Constructive Fraudulent Deed of Trust, County Clerk file stamp dated


May 15, 2015

K Constructive Notice with Tribal Violation Fee Schedule

Appellant’s Brief Third District Court of Appeals Page 36 of 36


Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall