Opinion
P-00-CR-400
June 19, 2001
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANTS' MOTION TO DISMISS
Before the Court is Defendants' Verified Motion in Abatement for Demand to Dismiss Action for Want of Jurisdiction ("Motion to Dismiss"), filed May 18, 2001, in the above-styled case. After careful consideration of the law and facts, the Court is of the opinion that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss should be DENIED.
In this Motion, Defendants assert the following grounds for dismissal: (1) that Defendants enjoy diplomatic immunity from prosecution under 28 U.S.C. § 254(d); (2) that 28 U.S.C. § 1251 reserves original jurisdiction of this case to the U.S. Supreme Court; and (3) that the United States may not prosecute Defendants except under international law or the laws and customs of war. These grounds for dismissal are predicated on Defendants' contention that the Republic of Texas is a legitimate, sovereign, and separate nation. The Court finds this argument unpersuasive.
On December 29, 1845, President James K. Polk signed the joint resolution that "`admitted [the State of Texas] into the Union on an equal footing with the original States in all respects whatever.'" Ralph H. Brock, "The Republic of Texas is No More": An Answer to the Claim that Texas was Unconstitutionally Annexed to the United States, 28 TEX.TECHL.REV. 679, 692 (1997) (quoting Joint Resolution for the Admission of the States of Texas into the Union, H.R.J. Res. Z, 29th Cong., 9 Stat. 108, 108 (1845)). On February 19, 1846, the end of independence and the beginning of statehood for Texas was proclaimed by Dr. Anson Jones, the last president of the Republic of Texas: "The final act in this great drama is now performed. . . . The republic of Texas is no more. Id. at 681 (citation omitted). The legitimacy of Texas's statehood and the enduring power of its admission into the Union was confirmed by the Supreme Court in Texas v. White, 74 U.S. 700, 726 (1868), overruled on other grounds by Morgan v. United States, 113 U.S. 476, 496 (1885):
When, therefore, Texas became one of the United States, she entered into a indissoluble relation. All the obligations of perpetual union, and all the guaranties of republican government in the Union, attached at once to the State. The act which consummated her admission into the Union was something more than a compact; it was the incorporation of a new member into the political body. And it was final. The union between Texas and the other States was complete, as perpetual, and as indissoluble as the union between the original States.
Defendants' argument that the Republic of Texas remains an independent, sovereign nation is also entirely unsupported within the international community. Despite their many letters to the United Nations and to other countries, the Republic of Texas has failed to receive any diplomatic recognition or recognition as a sovereign nation. Brock, 28 TEX. TECH L. REV, at 709-10. Despite Defendants' arguments to the contrary, in 1845, Texas became the 28th states of the United States of America. A consequence of attaining statehood and admission in to the Union is that the Republic of Texas ceased being. Accordingly, Defendants' grounds for dismissal of the Indictment based on the existence and recognition of the Republic of Texas as a sovereign nation are without merit. See McLaren v. United States, Inc., 2 F. Supp.2d 48, 51 (D.C.D.C 1998) (performing similar analysis to determine that the Republic of Texas no longer exists).
It is therefore ORDERED that Defendants' Motion to Dismiss be DENIED.