Download Report

Candice Schwager
ATTORNEY AT LAW
Tel: (832) 315-8489
Fax: (832) 514-4738
[email protected]
House Bill 2998 is Unconstitutional
The Supremacy Clause of the United States Constitution dictates that
the U.S. Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. Any contrary State
Law is VOID. Texas Constitution limits the power of Legislators to enact laws
in the same manner. The UGJPPJA purports to do something that even the President, an Act of Congress, or Constitutional Amendment cannot do because it would violate the laws of other sovereigns and deprive States of Statehood by removing their borders, such that Texas would cease to be Texas. What you are now considering via the UAGPPJA has been passed in 40 States and is being considered by 5 more—Texas included. Thank God, Texas is the one state who cannot agree to this absurd law by virtue of line 1 of 1 Article 1 of its Constitution, which states that Texas is a free state subject only to the United States Constitution. When I considered the UAGPPJA, I felt led to read about Secession, I was so disturbed by this Bill. The reason is I understand the sovereignty of my State and I knew that it was a violation of our Constitution to even think of allowing other States jurisdiction over our land. If there is one thing that is sovereign to any State, it is the property within its borders—because citizens move, land does not. The first line of our Constitution Article 1, Section 1 of the Texas Constitution, A: The Texas Constitution [1](adopted in 1876) in Article 1, Section 1 states
that "Texas is a free and independent State, subject only to the Constitution
of the United States..."
(Note that it does not state"...subject to the President of the United
States..." or "...subject to the Congress of the United States..." or "...subject
to the collective will of one or more of the other States...")
There is your answer to the UAGPPJA. You cannot legally approve it. But
there is another key reason that the other 40 States cannot legally pass this
void Statute too. It violates the United States Constitution with respect to
2 personal jurisdiction of the elderly and disabled by redefining everything
we know to be Constitutionally mandated under International Shoe and its
progeny of law.
Personal jurisdiction has always been about sufficient minimum contacts
with a State or domicile to assert jurisdiction. Domicile is where a person
lives. As a result, States cannot assert jurisdiction over a person’s person
unless one of the foregoing is established. States cannot assert jurisdiction
over the person based upon where they own real estate, for if this were true,
jurisdiction would be completely arbitrary and kidnapping would be
rewarded. We also cannot even pretend to have jurisdiction over real estate
of other States consistent with State Constitutions.
The Uniform Guardianship Code is largely unobjectionable because it
echoes the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Enforcement Act UCCJEA,
with one EXCEPTION THAT WOULD CHANGE THE FACE OF
AMERICA AND TEXAS AS WE KNOW IT IF IT WERE LEGAL—BY
ELIMINATING STATES ENTIRELY.
Section 2 purports to allow States to reach across each other’s borders to
sell real estate of the person taken into guardianship. This was drafted to
3 reduce costs and hassle for lawyers, thus generating ways to ‘MAKE
MORE MONEY’ off of its disabled and elderly citizens.
The net effect of the Code is it creates a human lottery that is completely
random with your number “drawn” when you are naïve enough to file for
guardianship expecting your State to protect you instead of exploiting you.
Not even the President of the United States could manage to pull of what
Terry Hammond and his cronies have done-- pulling the wool over
lawmakers’ eyes in 40+ States to create a Nationalized criminal statute that
purports to legalize kidnapping, slavery, and genocide.
This Bill will cannot legally be passed because it is illegal and an illegal
law is a nullity.
4