You are on page 1of 24

ACCEPTED

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

__________________________________________________________

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 Petition For Panel Hearing


__________________________________________________________________

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

Pros Se

Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 1 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
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 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 Petition For Panel Hearing Page 2 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

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

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

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

INTRODUCTION ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05

RESTATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION ------------------------- 06

ARGUMENT ------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 09

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER ------------------------------------------------------- 16

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ---------------------------------------------------------- 23

Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 3 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES

CASES Page

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


Sramek v. Sramek, 17 Kan. App. 2d 573 --------------------------------------------- 07
Sioux Tribe v. U.S. 205 Ct.Cl. 148 (1974) ------------------------------------------- 07
County of Oneida v. Oneida Indian Nation of New York State ------------------- 07
Thompson v. Tolmie, 2 Pet. 157, 7 L.Ed. 381 --------------------------------------- 10
Griffith v. Frazier, 8 Cr. 9, 3L. Ed. 471 ---------------------------------------------- 10
Pokanoket vs. Brown University 2017 ------------------------------------------------10
U.S. v. Will, 449 U.S. 200, 216, 101 S.Ct. 471, 66 L.Ed.2d 392, 406 (1980) ---16
Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat) 264, 404, 5 L.Ed 257 (1821), ------------16
United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 91 L. Ed 884 ----------------------17
State v. Sutton 63 Minn 167, 65 NW 262, 30 LRA 630 ----------------------------21
Hagens v. Lavine, 415 U.S. 533 ------------------------------------------------------- 21

STATUTES AND OTHER AUTHORITIES

Royal Proclamation of 1763 ----------------------------------------------------------- 07


Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783 ------------------------------------- 07
United Nations Declaration on the Rights of the
Indigenous Peoples (UNDRIP) ------------------------------------------------ 08
Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) ---------------------------------- 08
The American Declaration on the Rights
of Indigenous Peoples (ADRIP) ----------------------------------------------- 08
Hague Trust Convention ----------------------------------------------------------------20

CODES

Title 28 §1251---------------------------------------------------------------------------- 05
Title 1 United States Code, Section 1, Note 12. ------------------------------------ 16
25 U.S. 2216 ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- 20

Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 4 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
INTRODUCTION

TAKE NOTICE, Appellant, in Personam Jurisdiction, in full life Propria

Persona, is unlearned in law and requests the court relax standards; Appellant

reiterates as established in the Justice Court Precinct 4 Williamson County, Texas

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

Texas, Austin Cause number 03-18-00195-CV; Appellant is a foreign national, non

resident inhabitant, natural, private citizen and member of Tonkawa of Texas, a

pre-colonial tribe, a separate and sovereign body politic, having extra

constitutional unalienable rights protected by treaties and common law as

recognized by UNDRIP, ADRIP and UNESCO;

regarding the appeal from the judgment rendered by the trial court on March

28, 2018, this appeals court issued an unsigned Memorandum Opinion and

judgment dismissing the appeal as moot on November 21, 2018, unsigned by

David Puryear, Justice; Appellant files this Petition for Panel Hearing;

Appellant’s constitutional jurisdiction challenge remains unanswered; do the

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

and orders issued therein?;2

whereas the constitutional question before the court is jurisdiction and

Aboriginal Title, the court renders an opinion and judgment regarding possession

and foreclosure;

RESTATEMENT OF STATEMENT OF 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.” Melo v. US, 505 F2d 1026.

does this court or the trial courts have the right to confer jurisdiction where

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

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

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).

Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 6 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
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, without an act of Congress; 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; 3

Appellant 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;4 having its origins in the Royal

Proclamation of 1763 and the Confederation Congress Proclamation of 1783;

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

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 separate and sovereign body politic the

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

the Appellant, in violation of her unalienable rights, is not afforded due

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

protected Aborigine American Indian Inhabitant, foreign national status; having

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

the opinion states this matter is about possession; acquiring property of

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

maintains the matter is moot based on Aboriginal Title and jurisdiction,

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

decision as a matter of law;

according to Black’s Law Dictionary, the definition of moot is a subject for

argument; unsettled; undecided. A moot point is one not settled by judicial

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

does not arise upon existing facts or rights;

where the court and Appellees maintain there is an abstract question,

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

bind Appellant to an unlawful judgment?;

the Aboriginal Title is superior and the court is bound to uphold the

Aboriginal Superior Title; possession and title can not be separated; having

Aboriginal superior Title, Appellant cannot lawfully be alienated from tribal

restricted lands and property;

the opinion states that Appellant claims her tribal restricted lands and

property to be governed by federal law; whereas she established in court case

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

and community members, and memorialized in videos;

the opinion states the tribal restricted lands and property are located in

Williamson County, Texas; however, Appellant maintains Williamson County,

Texas is operating upon Appellant’s antediluvian bloodline’s Tonkawa of Texas

territory;

in addition to the first stance, the jurisdictional challenge remains

unanswered; Appellant not giving up rightful standing, in the second stance,

Appellant attempts to honorably act in peace, Appellant in compliance providing

the tab information; the appeals court and the lower courts have blatantly ignored

the following tabs, seemingly issuing a one sided opinion;

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?;

B - 1099a, dated 2017; showing Appellant is the original creditor never

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?;

Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 11 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
C - Private Indemnity Bond in the amount of $500,000, file stamped dated January

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

continues to be unacknowledged by courts; where is the bond and who has

financially benefited from it, and why hadn’t the bond settle the case?;

D - Offer of Tender, registered mail dated January 29, 2018; as established in

original documents, this Offer of Tender continues to be unacknowledged by

courts; why?

E - Notice of Request for Clarity, filed and dated February 2, 2018; as established

in original documents, in association with the Offer of Tender, Appellant requests

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?;

F - Judgment of JP Court, dated January 30, 2018; as established in original

documents, constitutional jurisdiction challenged remains unanswered, yet the

court acted rendering a void ab initio, which afforded Appellees unlawful

possession of Appellant’s tribal restricted lands and property; why?


Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 12 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
G - Filed UCC (Records), dated January 22, 2018, February 10, 2018, March 15,

2018 and May 2, 2018; as established in original documents, showing lawful

tender and bonds on public record denoting satisfactions and lawful collateral; this

continues unacknowledged by courts; why?;

H - Supersedeas Bond in the amount of $550,000, filed and dated March 31, 2018;

as established lawfully in original documents, the lower court unlawfully demands

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

returned; and continues to be unacknowledged by courts; why?; judge unlawfully

demands cash to stay the eviction proceeding; is this court agreeing with trial court

that demanding cash only is lawful?;

I - Judgment of County Court, dated March 29, 2018; as established in original

documents, constitutional jurisdiction challenge remains unanswered, yet the court

acted rendering void ab initio judgments affording Appellee’s et. al. unlawful

possession of Appellant’s tribal restricted lands and property; why?

J - Constructive Fraudulent Deed of Trust, County Clerk file stamp dated May 15,

2015; as established in original documents, this constructive fraudulent instrument

is satisfied according to the instrument’s clause stating Appellant can be reinstated

upon providing tender, even up to two years after “foreclosure”; why does the

court ignore this satisfaction?”


Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 13 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
K - Constructive Notice with Tribal Violation Fee Schedule; as established in

original documents, this lawful notice publicly brings notice to Appellant’s status

along with fees for violations; why is this lawful recognition being ignored?;

In addition to the above not being answered, the following is unanswered

regarding un-rebutted affidavits; Appellant’s tenders, offers of tender and bonds

remain un-rebutted; 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 tender, 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;

(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;


Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 14 of 24
Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
is there an approval by this court for the Appellant’s lawful tenders and

bonds to be ignored?; is the court approving the trial court’s ignorance of the tribal

trust; Appellant being the primary beneficiary of Tonkawa of Texas tribal

restricted lands and property therein?;

Appellant appointed Appellees’ trial attorney, Jason Hyde, on the record as

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;

whereas, the Appellant’s challenge is a constitutional jurisdiction challenge which

remains unanswered;

additionally, lawful tender is provided by Appellant satisfying all alleged

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

property; scripture reads Thou shalt not steal, Exodus 20:15;

Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 15 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
the lower court officials are acting in dishonor of their oath of office, making

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

Land from whence Appellant comes forth and does abide;

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

court and judge;

CONCLUSION AND PRAYER

for the courts the case is about possession and foreclosure, for Appellant, it

is about Aboriginal Title and jurisdiction because Appellant, having foreign

national status, under the Tonkawa of Texas tribe; a separate and sovereign body

politic; Appellant continues to demand Article III jurisdiction throughout

proceedings which has yet to be complied; fully understanding courts have

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

still ruling on this matter?;

whereas, the courts cite abstract question, the Appellant reiterates her

constitutional challenge pertaining jurisdiction; if it’s not had, it can’t be conferred;

if the court finds an abstract question, legal precedent set forth denotes all

ambiguities shall lean toward favoring the Indian;

constitutional jurisdiction is still being challenged by Appellant who is a

foreign national; has the courts provided a written explanation telling and showing

how they have jurisdiction over ALL THREE REQUIRED AREAS:

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

is located on Indian land, which has existed since time immemorial;

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;

Appellant is a pre-colonial foreign national within the borders of the United

States; respectfully, seeking to handle this matter privately throughout this

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

citizen of Tonkawa of Texas, having protected status as an Aborigine American

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

protections against deprivation and theft as established in original pleadings;

Appellant’s Petition For Panel Hearing Page 18 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
accordingly, said property is owned by tribe and Appellant is primary

beneficiary of the tribe, sole beneficiary holding superior Aboriginal Title of which

can only be extinguished by Congress in three ways:

1. Voluntary Purpose: Congress has not purchased subject tribal restricted

lands and property, nor is Appellant’s subject tribal restricted lands and/or

property for sale or abandoned; as shown on 1099a (Tab B);

2. Following a period of abandonment by tribe: Appellant has not and will

never abandon said sacred tribal restricted lands and/or property; again as

shown on 1099a (Tab B) and as witnessed by tribe and community

members, and memorialized on video;

3. Conquest following a just war: is Appellant’s property being seized under

armed guard considered a just war?; there are absolutely no just wars against

an Indian on Indian land according to the Most High Creator;

the federal government has trust responsibility in protecting the rights of

Appellant as an Indian, foreign national and private citizen of Tonkawa of Texas;

and Appellant is holding the federal government accountable to uphold federal

laws, constitution and treaties; the orders are in violation of your system’s laws;

Appellant maintains her right to privacy and her rights to Superior

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

Appellant remains primary beneficiary; hereby stating that her privacy is

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

restricted lands and property, Appropriate of Name of Likeness, Intrusion Upon

Seclusion; False Light and Public Disclosure of Private Facts by intentionally

intruding upon the solitude and seclusion of Appellant’s private tribal affairs and

concerns;

in tradition and as applicable to the Hague Trust Convention11, Appellant, a full

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.

Appellant is continually placed in a false light in public; this highly offensive

defamation continues to cause great suffering and injury as a result of the courts

and Appellees' et. al. actions and lack of actions;

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

constitution, a fraud is perpetrated and no one is bound to obey it13;

Appellant continues to assert Article III jurisdiction; once jurisdiction is

challenged, it must be proven;14

where jurisdiction does not exist, one cannot confer;

concluding, Appellant is requesting that court issues a Declaratory Injunction

declaring the lower court orders and judgments null and void ab initio; further

writing a Writ of Mandamus ordering Appellees et al. to immediately (within 14

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;

again, Appellant is asking the court to issue a Declaratory Injunction and

Writ of Mandamus based on lack of jurisdiction;

Appellant herein repeats, restates and incorporates by reference the

allegations as mentioned above;

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,

/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 Petition For Panel Hearing Page 22 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE

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 rule contain no more than 4,500 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 6th day of December, 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 Petition For Panel Hearing Page 23 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

For Appellant Petition for Panel Hearing 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, KAMMIE
MARSHALL by email at KMarshall@OneAustinRealty(dot)com, and to
JASON J. HYDE by email at

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.
Austin, Texas 78701
Phone: 512-200-4080
AND By Email: JHyde@HydeLaw(dot)com

KAMMIE MARSHALL, AGENT


5766 Balcones Drive
Suite 203
Austin, Texas 78731
By Email: KMarshall@OneAustinRealty(dot)com

Sworn under my hand and seal

On this the 6th day of December, 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 Petition For Panel Hearing Page 24 of 24


Third District Court of Appeals
Wilder vs MWS Capital, LLC & Kammie Marshall

You might also like