1 

1 

2 

3 

4 

S 

6 

7 

8 

9 

10 

11 

12 

13 

14 

15 

16 

17 

18 

19 

20 

21 

22 

23 

24 

25 

26 

Certified Mail®/Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811) No.: 7019 2970 0000 4676 8408 

1thfIb $tUfr !frUf IUUrf 2020 A Y 22 pfl 3: 

j7 forthe 

Western District of Texas 

AUSTIN DIVISION 

MARK JOSEPH WATSON©, ens legis 

Plaintiff 

vs. 

TExAs STATE UNIVERSITY 

Defendant 

CaJ iozlacQV 055 3P 

FRCP Rule 9(h)' BENCH TRIAL 

46 U.S.C. § 30903. Waiver of immunity, Texas 

Constitution Article 11 Municipal 

Corporations, and 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(2) 

COMPLAINT WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY ALLEGING A VIOLATION OF RESERVATION 

OF RIGHTS PURSUANT TO THE TEXAS BUSINESS AND COMMERCE CODE § 1-308, 

THE TRUTH IN LENDING ACT, REGULATION Z [12 C.F.R. § 226.23(A)(3)] AND 

COMMON LAW COPYRIGHT NOTICE (ITEM NO. 921803-2/CLCN) SEEKING 

ENFORCEMENT OF A COMMERCIAL LIEN 

[28 U.S.C. § 13332, 46 U.S.C. 30101, and 28 U.S.C. § 1338(c)4] 

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE of said court NOW COMES, MARK JOSEPH WATSON©, 

ens legis, filing this Complaint Within the AdmiraltyAlleging a Violation of Reservation of Rights 

Pursuant to the Texas Business and Commerce Code § 1-308, the Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z 

112 C.F.R. § 226.23 (a) (3)1 and Common Law Copyright Notice (Item No. 921803-2/CLCN) Seeking 

Enforcement of a Commercial Lien. 

I. The Parties to this Complaint 

A. The Plaintiff 

MARK JOSEPH WATSON©, ens legis 

1334 N Interstate 35 TRLR 36 

San Marcos, Texas 78666-7120 

(214) 659-1265 

mark.joseph.watsongmail.com 

1 FRCP Rule 9(h) ... Pleading Special Matters ... (h) ADMIRALTY OR MARITIME CLAIM. (1) How 

Designated. If a claim for relief is within the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction and also within the court's subjectmatter jurisdiction on some other ground, the pleading may designate the claim as an admiralty or maritime claim for 

purposes of Rules 14(c), 38(e), and 82 and the Supplemental Rules for Admiralty or Maritime Claims and Asset 

Forfeiture Actions. A claim cognizable only in the admiralty or maritime jurisdiction is an admiralty or maritime 

claim for those purposes, whether or not so designated. 

2 28 U.S.C. § 1333 Admiralty, maritime, and prize cases. 

3 46 U.S.C. § 30101 Admiralty Extension Act. 

4 28 U.S.C. § 1338(c) Patents, plant variety protection, copyrights, mask works, designs, trademarks, and unfair 

competition 

Complaint Within the Admiralty Page 1 of 5 Friday, May 22, 2020 

Case 1:20-cv-00553-RP Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 5
2 Certified Mail®/Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811) No.: 7019 2970 0000 4676 8408 

27 B. The Defendant 

28 TExAs STATE UNIVERSITY 

29 Dr. Denise M. Trauth 

30 Office of the President 

31 J.C. Kellam Building, 10th Floor 

32 601 University Drive 

33 San Marcos, Texas 78666-4684 

34 Phone: (512) 245.2121 

35 Email: presidenttxstate.edu 

36 II. Basis for Jurisdiction 

37 U.S. DISTRIcT COURT for the Western District of Texas, Austin Division (a.k.a. the court), is a 

38 court of limited jurisdiction. Under 28 U.S.C. § 1333, 28 U.S.C. § 1338(c), and 28 U.S.C. § 

39 1605(a)(2) the court may hear complaints within the admiralty seeking enforcement of a 

40 commercial lien. Under 46 U.S.C. § 30903 [Suits in Admiralty Act (SIAA)] is a specific 

41 waiver of the sovereign immunity defense for TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY for value 

42 established by affidavit within the admiralty [Admiralty Extensions Act (AEA)... 46 USC § 

43 30101]. 

44 A. The Plaintiff to this Complaint 

45 1. The Plaintiff is a COPYRIGHTED corporate fiction, ens legis (a.k.a. strawman). 

46 2. The Plaintiff, MARK JOSEPH WATSON©, ens legis, is a transmission utility under 

47 the Uniform Commercial Code6 (UCC) as adopted by the Texas Business and 

48 Commerce Code (BCC) and is the property of Mark-Joseph: Watson, Secured Party 

49 and resident of the state of Texas. 

50 B. The Defendant to this Complaint 

51 1. The Defendant is a municipal corporation. 

52 2. The Defendant, TEXAS STATE UNIVERSITY, is incorporated under the laws of the 

53 STATE OF TEXAS, and has its principal place of business in the STATE OF TEXAS. 

54 C. The amount in controversy 

55 The amount in controversy is TWO MILLION FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY ONE 

56 THOUSAND THREE HUNDRED FIFTY DOLLARS AND ZERO CENTS, 

57 $2,531,350.00, which includes costs of the court, and reasonable attorney's fees. 

58 III. Statement of the Claim 

59 In the UNITED STATES there are three types of jurisdiction: Equity (or Civil), Criminal 

60 (Common Law), and Admiralty (which can be both Civil and Criminal but requires a verbal 

61 or written contract). To be charged with a Common Law crime there has to be both an 

62 "injured party" and criminal intent. A government is a legal fiction and has no rights and 

63 cannot be an "injured party". Only human beings have rights. Individuals can testify against 

64 an accused person but a legal fiction cannot. 

65 

66 

67 

68 

69 

70 

"The individual may stand upon his constitutional rights as a citizen. He is 

entitled to carry on his private business in his own way. His power to 

is unlimited. He owes no such duty [to submit his books and papers f 

an examination] to the State, since he receives nothing therefrom, 

beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as 

5 46 U.S.C. § 30101 Extension of jurisdiction to cases of damage or injury on land. 

6 International maritime contract law. 

Complaint Within the Admiralty Page 2 of 5 Friday, May 22, 2020 

Case 1:20-cv-00553-RP Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 5
3 Certified Mail®/Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811) No.: 7019 2970 0000 4676 8408 

71 existed by the law of the land [Common Law] long antecedent to the 

72 organization of the State, and can only be taken from him by due process of 

73 law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his rights are a refusal to 

74 incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his property from arrest 

75 or seizure except under a warrant of the law. He owes nothing to the public so 

76 long as he does not trespass upon their rights." Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 at 

77 47 (1905). 

78 

79 "There are no common law offenses against the United States. Only those acts 

80 which Congress has forbidden, with penalties for disobedience of its 

81 command, are crimes." United States v. Hudson & Goodwin, 11 U.S. (7 th Cr.) 

82 32 (1812); United States v. Coolidge, 14 U.S. (1 Wheat.) 415 (1816); United 

83 States v. Britton, 108 U.S. 199, 206 (1883); United States v. Eaton, 144 U.S. 

84 677, 687 (1892). 

85 

86 "Actions to recover penalties imposed by act of Congress generally but not 

87 invariably have been held not to be criminal prosecutions." Oceanic 

88 Navigation Co. v. Stranaham, 214 U.S. 320 (1909); Hepner v. United States, 

89 213 U.S. 103 (1909); United States v. Regan, 232 U.S. 37 (1914). 

90 

91 Contempt proceedings, which were at one time not considered to be criminal 

92 prosecutions, are no longer within that category. Compare In re Debs, 158 

93 U.S. 564 (1895), with Bloom v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 194 (1968). 

94 

95 Please refer to Exhibit A Incident Report 20006117 it indicates that the victim of the 

96 alleged crime of criminal trespass during (the time on the report was 8:51PM) park hours 

97 (San Marcos, Texas park hours are from 6:00AM to 11:00PM) was the STATE OF TExAs 

98 (Article 11 of the Texas Constitution recognizes the STATE OF TEXAS as a corporation and the 

99 counties and cities as municipal corporations). In the report it indicates that I was WARNED 

100 NOT to be on public property after hours yet I was not handed any such citation. There were 

101 no violations of the rules of the use of public property. Therefore, no criminal trespass. I 

102 informed them that I was watching wildlife (deer) while working on my computer (during 

103 park hours). They obviously there for harassment purposes only. There is a Trump/Pense 

104 bumper sticker on the back of my truck. 

105 

106 

107 

108 

109 

110 

111 

112 

113 

114 

115 

116 

Absent an injured party there was no common law crime and in ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. (4 

Wall.) 2 (1866) the Supreme Court ruled the application of military tribunals to citizens 

when civilian courts are still operating is unconstitutional. What both Officer James Dixon 

and Officer Travis Talbot were doing was attempting to negotiate a maritime contract on 

behalf of the STATE OF TEXAS and with MARK JOSEPH WATSON©, ens legis (a 

transmission utility created with my birth certificate prusuant to the Uniform Commercial 

Code). A detailed explanation of this can be found in Proof That There is a 

"Straw Man" (https://sedm.org/Forms/05-MemLaw/StrawMan.pdf) and The 

Secret Maritime Jurisdiction of the United States Exposed (http://usa-therepublic.com/items%200f%20interest/Special%20Maritime%2OExposed.pdf). 

Both books are free to download. 

Complaint Within the Admiralty Page 3 of 5 Friday, May 22, 2020 

Case 1:20-cv-00553-RP Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 5
4 Certified Mail®/Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811) No.: 7019 2970 0000 4676 8408 

117 

118 In order to thwart any further harassment I e-mailed Officer James Dixon the next morning. 

119 Please refer to Exhibit B e-Mail to Officer James Dixon. As evident by the e-mail, the 

120 maritime contract negotiated by both Officer James Dixon and Officer Travis Talbot was 

121 rescinded pursuant to the Texas Business and Commerce Code sec. 1-308 [same as the 

122 Uniform Commercial Code (UCC)] and the Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z [12 C.F.R. § 

123 226.23(a)(3)]. Absent a contract the STATE OF TExAs lack jurisdiction to compel 

124 performance. 

125 

126 When a judge knows that he lacks jurisdiction, or acts in the face of clearly 

127 valid statutes expressly depriving him of jurisdiction, judicial immunity is 

128 lost. Rankin v. Howard, (1980) 633 F.2d 844, cert. Den. Zeller v. Rankin, 101 

129 S.Ct. 2020, 451 U.S. 939, 68 L.Ed 2d 326. 

130 

131 A judge must be acting within his jurisdiction as to subject matter and person, 

132 to be entitled to immunity from civil action for his acts. Davis v. Burns, 51 

133 Ariz. 220, 75 P.2d 689 (1938). 

134 

135 When a judicial officer acts entirely without jurisdiction or without 

136 compliance with jurisdiction requisites he may be held civilly liable for abuse 

137 of process even though his act involved a decision made in good faith, that he 

138 had jurisdiction. Little v. U.S. Fidelity & Guaranty Co., 217 Miss. 576, 64 So. 

139 2D697. 

140 

141 "No judicial process, whatever form it may assume, can have any lawful 

142 authority outside of the limits of the jurisdiction of the court or judge by 

143 whom it is issued; and an attempt to enforce it beyond these boundaries is 

144 nothing less than lawless violence." Ableman v. Booth, 21 Howard 506 (1859). 

145 

146 "We (judges) have no more right to decline the exercise of jurisdiction which 

147 is given, than to usurp that which is not given. The one or the other would be 

148 treason to the Constitution." Cohen v. Virginia, (1821), 6 Wheat. 264 and U.S. 

149 v. Will, 499 U.S. 200. 

150 

151 I was approached by Officer Travis Talbot on Friday, March 27, 2020 at 8:37AM. He 

152 immediately started threatening quasi in rem arrest for failure to perform under the maritime 

153 contract. I informed him that it wasn't after hours. He started getting violent and 

154 threatening quasi in rem arrest if I didn't leave immediately. I was in the park sitting in my 

155 truck in a parking space under an oak tree writing a brief. I had a deadline on my brief so I 

156 complied with his unlawful demand. As I was leaving I remembered I didn't get his business 

157 card so I had a record of whom was in VIOLATION of Common Law Copyright Notice (Item 

158 No. 921803-2/CLCN) and Affidavit of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308. 

159 /IlI.t._ 

160 I pulled over to the side a waived for him to come over. He immediately started '. 

161 getting violent and threatening quasi in rem arrest. He started yelling at me not 

162 to argue with him and I said I wasn't. I was asking him for a business card. 

aj USA Complaint Within the Admiralty Page 4 of 5 Friday, May 22, 2020 

Case 1:20-cv-00553-RP Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 5
S Certified Mail®/Domestic Return Receipt (PS Form 3811) No.: 7019 2970 0000 4676 8408 

163 Ultimately another officer and I got a business card. I filed an open records request the 

164 following Monday. Officer Talbot's actions were not only offensive they were a criminal 

165 infringement of a copyright (18 U.S.C. § 2319) and felony civil rights crimes [18 U.S.C. § 

166 241 and 18 U.S.C. § 242 under the color of Texas Business and Commerce Code sec. 1-308 

167 and 12 C.F.R. § 226.23(a)(3)] along with several State crimes (false police report, unlawful 

168 detention, and harassment). Exhibit C is the Incident Report for the exchange involving 

169 Officer Talbot. 

170 

171 Both Officer Talbot and Officer Dixon had copies of Common Law Copyright Notice (Item 

172 No. 921803-2/CLCN) and Affidavit of Reservation of Rights UCC 1-308. By leaving a falsely 

173 filed Criminal Trespass Warning in affect and threatening quasi in rem arrest there were two 

174 violations of the copyright notice and reservation of rights. The copyright notice multiples 

175 the reservation of rights violation by three. The copyright notice is a self-executing contract 

176 with power of sale and right of non-judicial foreclosure. 

177 IV. Relief 

178 I ask that the Court order the clerk to issue the proposed Writ of Attachment enter judgment 

179 against the Defendant for $2,531,350.00 which includes costs of the court and reasonable 

180 attorney's fees. 

181 V. Certification and Closing 

182 Although not required by Federal Rules of Civil Procedure - Rule 11, this complaint 

183 contains an affidavit requiring a point by point rebuttal for the complaint not to stand as 

184 judgment under common law. Under Rule 11, by signing this Complaint Within the 

185 Admiralty Alleging a Violation of Reservation of Rights Pursuant to the Texas Business and 

186 Commerce Code § 1-308, the Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z 112 C.F.R. § 226.23 (a) (3)] 

187 and Common Law Copyright Notice (Item No. 921803-2/CLCN) Seeking Enforcement of a 

188 Commercial Lien, I certify to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief this 

189 complaint: (1) is not being presented for an improper purpose, such as to harass, cause 

190 unnecessary delay, or needlessly increase the cost of litigation; (2) is supported by existing 

191 law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law; (3) 

192 the factual contentions have evidentiary support or, if specifically so identified, will likely 

193 have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery; 

194 and (4) the complaint otherwise complies with the requirements of Rule 11. 

195 

196 I also certify under penalty of perjury (28 U.S.C. § 1746) that the foregoing complaint bares 

197 witness to the TRUTH and is supported with evidence and unrebutted testimony (affidavits). 

198 I also certify that, out of respect for Congress, the court, and the people it serves, I do not 

199 misrepresent the court's jurisdictional authority to enforce the commercial lien. 

200 

201 Without Prejudice UCC 1-308, 

205 Mark-Joseph: Watson, Secure Party/Creditor, Authorized 

206 Representative, Morney-In-Fact, on behalf of 

207 MARK JOSEPH WATSON.b, ens legis 

208 Texas UCCI Pile No. 19-0003750520 

Complaint Within the Admiralty Page 5 of 5 Friday, May 22, 2020 

Case 1:20-cv-00553-RP Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 5