Ensminger v. Farm Credit Bank & First National Bank

Understanding the Decision

 After reviewing the Ensminger case and discussing it with Mr. Ensminger , this narrative has been prepared to summarize the Ensminger case and the Tenth Circuit decision.

Mr. Ensminger, with a foreclosure case in progress in a state District court in Oklahoma , filed a suit in Federal District court for the Western District of Oklahoma to establish superior title to the property being foreclosed on. He was attempting to force the Federal District court to convene as a court "in" law for the purpose of establishing that he, through land patent, had the highest title to his property. It should be noted that this was an entirely new case and had nothing to do with the foreclosure case in the state court.

As a matter of strategy, the laws he cited to create a federal question for the Federal District court were the patent laws of the U.S. dealing with "intellectual patents", or patents on inventions. As expected, the two banks moved to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction because the laws cited had nothing to do with land patents. The District court agreed with the banks' motions and dismissed the case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, again, as expected.

As soon as the District court dismissed the case Mr. Ensminger filed a notice of appeal. He did not, however, proceed with the appeal at that point and the time to File the appeal expired. He then received a letter from the Tenth Circuit court (on their own initiative) approximately two months later informing him that they were "extending his time to file an appeal." The Tenth Circuit court was, in essence, asking him to proceed with his appeal! This is unheard of in normal appellate procedure! So he proceeded with the appeal.

Prior to the appeal the case was heard in the court of the people, the Common Law Court , and this court's decision was filed with the appeal to the Tenth Circuit court. (NOTE: Mr. Ensminger first declared quiet title on himself, thereby extricating himself from the "federally privileged or 14th amendment citizen" status, allowing him to have his case heard in the proper venue.)

The Tenth Circuit court affirmed the ruling of the District court that it did not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear a case for higher title to land. They did not, however, leave it at simply affirming the decision. They issued an Order and Judgment which is almost unheard of for an appeals court. The key to understanding this as a victory as follows.

The Tenth Circuit decision, entitled ORDER AND JUDGMENT, contains three very important issues.

1.It It is a fact by statute and by case law that a court of equity does not have jurisdiction to determine legal or highest title to property.   It can only determine who has equitable interest.  As stated on the second page of the order.  Mr. Ensminger was trying to establish that he had the highest title and the court knew that it did not have jurisdiction on the title issue as it refused to convene as a court "in" law.

TThe order, on the second page, contains the phrase ".. the facts of the courts original jurisdiction, exclusive to the people, did speak, and was placed into evidence ." By quoting this statement from the decision of the COMMON LAW COURT , the court of the people, the Tenth Circuit court recognized the decision, venue and jurisdiction of the COMMON LAW COURT!

3.Most   important  is  to  follow   the  asterisk  behind  the  ORDER   AND JUDGMENT* to the bottom of the first page to read the statement to which it refers. It says "This order and judgment is not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case, res judicata, and collateral estoppel."  (Emphasis added) This means that it is binding precedent for res judicata which means that it has already been decided by a court of competent jurisdiction and collateral estoppel which means the opponent cannot bring it up again.

What court of competent jurisdiction made a decision ? The only court involved in this case that made any kind of decision was the Common Law Court. The District court dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and the Tenth Circuit affirmed. Therefore, the doctrine of res judicata in this case could only apply to the Common Law Court .

Since the Common Law Court cannot be reviewed, the Tenth Circuit could not state that they affirmed that decision. All they could do was to affirm the District court's dismissal for lack of jurisdiction. But, by quoting from the Common Law Court's decision and establishing that res judicata exists, the Tenth Circuit has agreed with the Common Law Court . The People Have Spoken! The implications of this are truly astounding!

Mr. Ensminger is now in the process of going back to the state court with the Common Law Court decision to remove the case from them and render their judgment null and void.

To add to the validity of this understanding of the Tenth Circuit decision it is important to note that there have been other successes incorporating this decision into a judicial notice to the other courts, and removing these cases to the venue of the Common Law Court. In one such case, James A. Elliott & United States Bankruptcy Court for the Western District of Oklahoma, the bankruptcy court agreed with the Common Law Court's decision and ordered that Mr. Elliott receive all of his property back even though it had been sold and taken from his possession.

It is clear that, as more people become involved with the Common Law Court and more cases are heard, we will see more and more success in being able to remove ourselves from the oppression and tyranny of the de facto U.S. "system" and more firmly establish the authority of the People through the Common Law.