Youre a KING Im a KING Government in

You’re a KING I’m a KING Government in America is a contract between KINGS to obey it as long as the PROPERTY of every KING is protected consisting of their LIFE, LIBERTY & POSSESSIONS John Locke, Second Treatise of Government 1689

“Ad Valorem Property Tax” is Unlawful in the United States of America Avery v. Guadalupe Co. Appraisal District (GCAD) Filed in Supreme Court of Texas 5/31/17 www. Sue. IT. org/avgcad. html

Avery is invited by the State to Protest his ad valorem Property Tax. n n n All “taxpayers” are invited annually to protest their ad valorem property tax; Avery did so in 2015; All Kings in Texas should do the same for the reason that they don’t owe it; The sitting courts of the “State of Texas” cannot cite any common law foundation for constitutional provisions imposing the ad valorem property tax on the people (KINGS) of Texas; Property tax is REPUGNANT to the applicable common law for Texas existing prior to the Constitution that cannot be adopted under Article 16 Section 48 of the Texas Constitution.

Time Line: Avery’s Protest: n n n 5/22/15 filed protest forms with GCAD. 6 Grounds, 1 w/ 9 statements of fact. 7/21/15 ARB held hearing on all grounds. 7/22/15 ARB issued orders on 2 grounds and part of a 3 rd. 8/13/15 Avery requested order on remaining 3 & ½ grounds. n n 8/26/15 GCAD set another hearing. 10/14/15 ARB held 2 nd hearing on remaining grounds including part of prior order. 10/16/15 ARB issued final order on all remaining issues & 9 statements of fact. 12/14/15 Avery filed Appeal in 2 nd 25 th District. ARB: Appraisal Review Board

Time Line: Avery’s Appeal to District Court n n n 12/14/15 Avery filed an appeal to the 2 nd 25 th District Court against Defendant GCAD filed Motion to Partially Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction on 2 ½ grounds. GCAD filed Motion for “No Evidence” Summary Judgment on remaining grounds. GCAD filed Motion for “Traditional” Summary Judgment on remaining grounds. 7/14/16 Judge granted all motions in favor of GCAD After a 15 min. hearing, & short advisement period.

Time Line: 4 th Court of Appeals n n n 9/9/16 Avery files Appeal to 4 th COA. Avery filed Appellant’s Brief. GCAD files Appellee’s Brief. Avery files Appellant’s Reply Brief. 4/12/17 COA writes 13 page Memorandum Opinion against Avery. 5/31/17 Avery files Petition for Review in the Supreme Court of Texas (SCOT).

Protest: Reasons for Your Protest STEP 3: n n n Value is over market value; Value is unequal compared with other properties; Property should not be taxed in TEXAS; Property should not be taxed in this appraisal district or in one or more taxing units; Other: Art. 8 Sec. 1 -e; Art. 8 Sec. 1(a); and other laws;

Protest: Facts That May Help Resolve Your Case 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. n STEP 4 I am a citizen of the state of Texas not a “taxpayer, ” & Therefore may apply the Texas Constitution to this process. Art. 8 Sec. 1 -e says “No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this state. All the taxing entities using this CAD, & including the CAD, are subdivisions of the State of Texas & are considered the State of Texas according to the Civil Practice & Remedy Code Section 101. 001(3)(A)(B) & hence each is the State of Texas. No part of a whole may have more authority or power than the whole. No one can delegate to another more authority or power than they hold in themselves. Art. 8 Sec. 1(a): “Taxation shall be equal and uniform. ” Ad valorem property taxes cannot be equal and uniform and never will be. The sole purpose of lawful government is to protect the property of each citizen consisting of their life, liberty & possessions. Lawful government cannot be supported by a means that confiscates the property it is to protect and charges the real owners an annual rent to occupy and use. The value of my property was unlawfully increased 425. 9% from last year resulting in an estimated tax, using last year’s rate, of $8, 129. 61 compared to last year’s $4, 301. 99 or just about doubled and the rate will go up at least 15% from last year. This is outrageous and unlawful. The effect is simply that I am being pushed off MY PROPERTY by the State which does not own it. What do you think your property’s value is? (Optional): $100, 000, 000. 00 or 100 Quintrillion dollars Nine Statements of Fact

Protest: ARB Partial Order 7/22/15: n n n ARB rejects the appeal to the Texas Constitution as a viable cause of appraised value. The appraisal records are not correct and should be changed. Appraiser assigned value: $0. 0. ARB assigned value: $398. 00 ARB assigned Equity: $0. 0 Chief appraiser to make changes to the appraisal records concerning this property and the values shall remain as follows: Land non homesite: Improvement Value: Total Market Value: Total Appraised Value: Total Assessed Value: ARB Submitted $61, 847. $0 $61, 847 Final Value $0 $0 $398

15 min. Humorous District Court Hearing n n THE COURT: Mr. Avery, hadn't the train kind of left the station on the legality of the ad valorem tax? THECOURT: That train left the station. you're asking me to Rule that every ad valorem tax payment made since 1876 has been illegal? n n THE COURT: You know , I‘m – I didn't run for reelection, but they would probably remove me from office if I – MR. AVERY: You will be reelected for sure this time because – if I win this, we all become property owners and – rather than tenants.

District Court Hearing Cont’d: n MR. AVERY: The very property we’re talking about in here they said was worth $61, 000. I went in and said: Let’s reduce it to 20, 000. They said – they came back and said, We’ve done more research. It’s worthless, it’s worth $398, and now I’m building a three story house on it. Property taxes is nothing more than rent and setting the value is nothing more than rent negotiation. That’s – that’s not the law. That can’t be the law.

District Court Hearing Cont’d. n n THE COURT: Even if I don’t rule in front of him, would you represent me in front of the appraisal review board on my house? MR. AVERY: I’d be happy to.

House on $398. 00 Property Dropped from $61, 000.

Trial Court Rulings 8/10/16 Granted GCAD Motion to Partially Dismiss: 1. 2. 3. His property was over market value. His property was unequal compared to other properties. The property should not be taxed based on the Texas Constitution, including Art. 8 Sec. 1(a), 1 -e and other provisions of it and other laws are hereby dismissed from this cause for lack of jurisdiction.

Trial Court Rulings 8/10/16 cont’d. Granted GCAD Motions for “No Evidence” and “Traditional” Summary Judgments. n n Defendant’s Traditional Motion for Summary Judgment (JS) is granted and the Plaintiff take nothing by way of this action; Defendant’s “No Evidence” SJ is granted and the Plaintiff take nothing by way of this action.

9/9/16 Appeal to 4 th COA Claiming: 1. 2. 3. 4. TC erred granting Motion for Partial Dismissal. TC erred granting Motion for “No Evidence” SJ. TC erred granting Motion for Traditional SJ. Ad Valorem Property Tax is Feudal, Un. American, Unlawful in the Union.

Avery’s Reply Brief Issues 4 th COA: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. No appeal until Final order by Statute. “No Evidence” SJ has no merit (barred) by Statute. GCAD has shown no evidence in support of State authority to impose property tax. Unequal is equal and nonuniform is fake law. State subdivisions that do not have statewide authority do not become lawful non-state entities. State continually deceives the people regarding ownership and tenancy.

4 th COA Rulings: n n Affirmed Motion to Partially Dismiss. But they did not address it. They did treat all other issues, other than property values, under GCAD’s Motions for “No Evidence” and “Traditional” SJs. Affirmed both Motions for “No Evidence” and “Traditional” SJs. Addressed the natural and common law challenges but were insufficient. COA said that the Constitution adopted existing common law which they PRESUME included “ad valorem property taxation. ”

4 th COA Rulings Cont’d. n n Because the First Legislature passed several general acts covering substantially the entire field of taxation that these acts merely declare and apply the common-law principles of taxation which they presume to include “ad valorem property tax. ” This is simply false. They made a mistake which is clearly shown by the founders, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, and Samuel Adams, all of whom spoke directly on point that we own our property in America with an allodial title that cannot be aliened by government for the payment or performance of anything.

4 th COA Rulings Cont’d. n n Under Texas Property Tax Code, Avery’s evidence did not show entitlement to a tax exemption but was merely a re-assertion of his argument that Texas had no authority to impose ad valorem property tax. Affirmed GCAD’s Motion to Partially Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction and both Summary Judgments.

Avery’s Petition for Review Supreme Court of Texas (SCOT) n 1. 2. 3. 4. Four Points of Error: COA affirmed Partial Dismissal in violation of statute. COA affirmed “No Evidence” SJ which is barred by statute. COA affirmed “Traditional” SJ without showing there were no issues of fact. COA affirmed SJ without showing the law was in GCAD’s favor. GCAD filed Waiver of Response which is typical for winners, especially it they have nothing. The SCOT will not grant Avery’s Petition w/o first requesting a Response from Respondent, GCAD.

1 st Point of Error n n n COA Affirmed Partial Dismissal for Lack of Jurisdiction in violation of statute (appeal not filed until after 60 days for first 2 ½ issues). TPTC § 42. 21(a) requires a final order prior to appeal which Avery did not have until after the deadline for the Partial order expired. COA did not address this in their Opinion. Travis Central Appraisal District v. Marshall Ford Marina, Inc. suggests that if an order does not dispose of all issues brought in a protest an appeal cannot be made.

2 nd Point of Error n n n COA Affirmed “No Evidence” SJ in violation of statute. TPTC § 42. 23(f) gets rid of “No Evidence” SJs in tax cases if the party files any evidence that they submitted at the ARB hearing. Avery filed 2 affidavits in response to “No Evidence” SJ containing evidence he submitted at ARB hearings. Weight of evidence is irrelevant under this statute. Motion was treated as if it was filed outside of a tax case where this statute would not apply. Estate of Smith v. Ector Cnty. Appraisal Dist. , 480 S. W. 3 d 796 (Tex. App. , 2015).

rd 3 Point of Error FACT ISSUES: n n COA Affirmed Traditional Motion for SJ w/o showing there were NO FACT ISSUES. GCAD & Avery raised FACT ISSUES regarding the existence of ad valorem property taxes in the common law in America. A SJ cannot be granted where FACT ISSUES are present. n n n GCAD claimed their evidence in the Texas Constitution and Texas Property Tax Code was sufficient authority to impose ad valorem property tax on citizens. Avery showed evidence that the property tax provisions of the Texas Constitution were contradictory and therefore unenforceable. People don’t have authority to alien another’s property to delegate to government. Avery showed evidence that property tax was feudal and repugnant to the common law that should be applicable in the United States and Texas.

4 th Point of Error n n COA Affirmed Traditional SJ W/O SHOWING LAW WAS IN GCAD’s FAVOR. SJ cannot be granted where the LAW IS NOT IN FAVOR OF MOVANT. Law was in Avery’s favor and COA wrote a “No Evidence” Opinion! n n n Presumption about the prior common law or constitutional law or fundamental law cannot stand where clear evidence to the contrary is shown. Avery filed supreme, expert, unchallenged evidence showing law was not in favor of GCAD. Even the COA could not show evidence superior to Avery’s & relied upon a presumption while Avery gave expert testimony from 4 founders proving property tax violates the common law of England America.

SUMMARY OF PETITION 4 points of Error: First two Motions: 1. 2. Statute blocks Motion for Partial Dismissal. TPTC § 42. 21(a) Statute bars “No Evidence” Summary Judgment in property tax case. TPTC § 42. 23(f) Third Motion: 3. 4. Existence of Fact Issues prevents “Traditional” Summary Judgment. Law does not favor Movant GCAD. Avery’s superior evidence shows Property tax is repugnant to applicable Common Law & should be repealed under Art. 16 § 48 Texas Constitution.

Law Does Not Favor Movant Defendant GCAD n n n Claimed Numerous Constitutional Provisions and Texas Property Tax Code is lawful authority for imposition of ad valorem property taxation. Claimed Property tax was here from the beginning before present 1876 Texas Constitution (common law). 4 th COA added that it is presumed that all constitutional provisions contain the correct common law that existed before its institution. Petitioner Avery n n n Showed that Property Tax provisions of the Constitution are contradictory & Unenforceable. Showed expert unchallenged testimony from four Founding Fathers who spoke directly on point that property tax is feudal and has no place in English or American Common Law, John Locke, Thomas Jefferson, John Adams & Samuel Adams. He also showed that Presumption cannot stand in fundamental Constitutional law where it is clearly shown to be wrong.

Direct Comparison: Evidence & Law: COA’s Presumption n “The Constitution was framed with reference to the common law, and in judging what the Constitution means we should keep in mind that it is not the beginning of the law of the state, but that it assumes the existence of a wellunderstood system, which was still to remain in force and be demonstrated, and that the constitutional definitions are in general drawn from the common law. ” Great S. Life Ins. Co. v. City of Austin, 112 Tex. 1, 243 S. W. 778, 780 (1922)

Avery’s evidence of Direct Expert Authority of Thomas Jefferson: n n “Our Saxon ancestors held their lands, as they did their personal property, in absolute dominion, disencumbered with any superior, answering nearly to the nature of those possessions which the feudalists term allodial. ” “Feudal holdings were therefore but exceptions out of the Saxon laws of possession, under which all lands were held in absolute right. These, therefore, still form the basis, or ground-work, of the common law, to prevail wheresoever the exceptions have not taken place. America was not conquered by William the Norman, nor its lands surrendered to him, or any of his successors. Possessions there are undoubtedly of the allodial nature. ” Thomas Jefferson A Summary View of the Rights of British America (1774)

Avery’s evidence of Direct Expert Authority of John Adams: n “till God in his benign providence raised up the champions who began and conducted the Reformation. From the time of the Reformation to the first settlement of America, knowledge gradually spread in Europe, but especially in England; and in proportion as that increased and spread among the people, ecclesiastical and civil tyranny, which I use as synonymous expressions for the canon and feudal laws, seem to have lost their strength and weight. ” John Adams, A Dissertation on the Canon and Feudal Law (1768)

Avery’s evidence of Direct Expert Authority of John Adams cont’d: n n “It was this great struggle that peopled America. It was not religion alone, as is commonly supposed; but it was a love of universal liberty, and a hatred, a dread, a horror, of the infernal confederacy before described, that projected, conducted, and accomplished the settlement of America” “After their arrival here, they began their settlement, and formed their plan, both of ecclesiastical and civil government, in direct opposition to the canon and the feudal systems. ”

Avery’s evidence of Direct Expert Authority of John Locke governmental authority: n “First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely arbitrary over the lives and fortunes of the people: for it being but the joint power of every member of the society given up to that person, or assembly, which is legislator; it can be no more than those persons had in a state of nature before they entered into society, and gave up to the community: for no body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself ; and no body has an absolute arbitrary power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the life or property of another. ” Peter Laslett, Locke, Two Treatises of Government, (Cambridge University Press, 40 TH West 20 th Street, New York, NY 10011 -4211, USA) 2 nd Treatise p. 357

Avery’s evidence of Direct Expert Authority of Samuel Adams: n “In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defense of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. ”

EDUCATE SPECIAL SESSION ON “PROPERTY TAX REFORM” n n n Join Avery Tues. July 18, 2017 at the North and South steps of the Capitol. Pass out literature showing we own our property like Royalty & do not owe government rent, fees, taxes or tenures to keep our property. Stop all future bonds secured by property tax immediately. Pay off the debt with no increase in property tax. Once paid there can be no property tax.

Thank You! n n n Pray that God intervene in my Petition; Pray that the Supreme Court will grant my Petition; Pray that the Legislature will return our property to us according to our true inheritance; Pray that the people learn what their inheritance is and demand their government honor it. Amen.