David C. Goad v. the County of Guadalupe, Texas, 04-14-00497-CV

Appellant David Goad (and daughter Natalie) appeal a June 2, 2014 judgment for unpaid property taxes, fees, and penalties on a one‑acre parcel in Guadalupe County adjacent to Zuehl Flying Community. The parcel was allegedly landlocked by a fence installed in 2008 and later regained access.
Goad contends the county chief appraiser (Jamie Osborne) and county officials committed fraud and deliberately withheld or misrepresented appraisal/protest information that affected valuation and the trial outcome. He also notes a large valuation increase in 2013 (to $21,713) that was later reduced in 2014 to $10,956.
Goad previously filed a federal RICO / civil‑rights action (SA‑08‑CA‑0674) connected to the fence and county conduct; that litigation and related events (including arrests of witnesses) are relied on in the brief.
Procedurally, Goad alleges the trial court and clerk refused to follow local rules and rules of procedure: denying settings/hearings on his motions, failing to provide requested records or copies, refusing a jury trial and withholding the jury fee, and denying continuances.
Goad seeks reversal of the judgment, removal/clearing of Natalie’s name, a declaration that the case involved fraud upon the court, costs and attorneys’ fees (or compensation for his appellate work), and the opportunity to present oral argument.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
1. Fraud on the court by chief appraiser	Osborne and friends fabricated or withheld appraisal/protest records and knowingly misled the court to obtain a favorable judgment	County defends the appraisal record and judgment (not detailed in brief)	Trial court entered judgment for the County (judgment challenged on appeal)
2. Due process / §1983 civil‑rights violations	County actors acted with deliberate indifference to deprive Goad of Fourteenth Amendment rights by denying hearings, denying jury, and sanitizing records	County denies civil‑rights liability (not detailed in brief)	No relief in trial court; claim preserved for appeal
3. Trial court abused discretion by refusing hearings or rulings on motions	Clerk and judge refused to set hearings despite local rule requiring setting on pro se request; motions went undecided	County maintains procedures were proper (not detailed in brief)	Motions were not heard/ruled on below; appealed as abuse of discretion
4. Clerk failed to provide required notices / copies under TRAP/TRCP	Clerk failed to send or produce records, local rules, and copies of filings, placing Goad at a disadvantage on appeal	County contends its service and record handling were adequate (not detailed in brief)	Record below lacked some requested materials per appellant; dispute presented on appeal

Shaughnessy v. United States, 347 U.S. 260 (procedural‑due‑process principles cited by appellant)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937 (standards for pleading asserted by appellant)
Brown v. Board of Education, 338 U.S. 204 (due‑process and fundamental fairness principles referenced)
Levine v. United States, 362 U.S. 610 (appearance of justice / due‑process maxims cited)
United States v. Stutino (7th Cir.), 521 F.2d 842 (appellant cites precedent on judicial disqualification and jurisdictional defects)
Spradun v. Jim Walter Homes, Inc., 34 S.W.3d 578 (Tex. 2000) (Texas construction principles and statutory interpretation cited)