MacK, Craig E.

Case Information

Dear Clerk: As Enclosed Please find a copy of two(2) affidavits in support of adhibicants What of Habease Combe (11.07) in Cause No: 2013-2331-C2A.

Exparte Craig Mase.

Cvailmact

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS MAY 262015 Abel Acosta, Clerk

Allidauity Challenging the Drial Counts "Prejudice and Bias" in Refusing to Recrond to Alliants Sira Eerion" Trial As Without Jurisdiction To In The Allerged Allerws, And Alliants Shind Erron Trial Dunt Aluse By Rishation.

Craig Mack Vs. STAIE OF TBXAS CAUSE NO. 2013-2331-CA2 1

On March 30, 2015, Alliant filled busy State White By Hahwa Confus Pursuant to 11.07, with a memorandum of Sour with suff-onting arguments and Case Law Pursuant to Jex Rule of APP. Proc. 73, In Cause mumbers 2013-2073-C2, and 2013-2331-C2: 2 On April 17, 2015, the State filled, "States avourer To an APPlication for Writ By Hahwa Confus" by its Nethesentative; Sterling Harman. 3 Sterling Harman, on aAnil 07,2015 did Krouingly, intentionally, deliberately and maliciously "believed" to "reafond and addrual" every issue- Point of Error accorded in Alliants Writs By Hahwa Confus, with a memorandum of Sour, auffording arguments and case law to suiford each and every Point of Error. 4 Alliant asserts the official misconduct by Sterling Harman, is by definition "organised Criminal activity and Conspray to derrive alliant of his constitutional rights; QuP Process and Equal Protect isn Clause Ualition; also affents Right to be Heard and question ab, or each." 5* See Article VI, of the United States Constitution, which states "This Constitution, and the status of the United States which shall be made Pursuance thereof; and all. Tristies mark, on which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the Subname Sour by the stand; and the Suited" in every State shall be bound thereby, any thing in the Constitution or status of any State to the Conspray matuit katanding" and quote.

6* The 5TH District Court, Hmwah ita representatives, John R. Vicha, Steffen Reed, BrianE. Howell, Karen Martin, Abolino Keuna, Amanda Dillian, Honorable Judge Mati Johnson, Joseph Scarampati, Brad Bond, Richard Johnson and, Steilina Harmon, all in "Concert" has engaged in this organized criminal activity by Cono Diary to define against 9, 400 of his constitutions. Thatched Riahis under the 5th Bt 20, Riahis is the United States Constitution. (1st 11th 14th) and (2nd 17th I, 3ertions 39, 18 and 19 , by the 20 Kia Constitution.

7* Alliant asserts as truth that all of the posts are within the mine (3) " nominal nations alliards killed (D) 05/25/2014(5) 06/06/14; (2) 06/09/14, and (D) 06/01/14, and all well around on the District Judge, the District Attorney and the District Clerk, and all three in "Concert" have attempted to feed alliant "allant" "in remealing the truth by "releasing" to "reform" to alliant nations. (3) " fraudulent Deception"

8* An alliant two(2) Units of Raban Corpus and Hmwandum, obdew, Stevina Harmon to "reelised" to "reform" to all" by the Pants of, "in an attempt to "ailout" alliant "in enereciving the fraudulent" acts and omissions" by the 20 Kia Court officials.

9* Alliant assert as truth that all of the named "parties" herein are nominal alliances against the state of Texas, and are "Due Process and Equal Protection" Cause violation. Their acts and omissions are dieday, thequabant the fraudulent" final court exceeding.

10* Alliant within assert as truth that the Honorable Judge Mati Johnson is the "Ethadodot", as article VI, states: "the Judges in"suicy State shall be inounted thensly" and quate: Judge Mati Johnson has been a 20 -listed by 300 ; however he has made us his own 'dome' in his tribunal and execute" "dornada" that alliaride and totally "dorn" "snow" the "constitutional existence; he makes his own 'dance' in his tribunal.

11* "However, Silence can only equate with "baud" where there is a "legal" or "moral" duty" to Bestand, or where on impuiy left unannuided would be intentionally misleading." and quate. See: U.S. V. Fundiont 424 Fed 1021 (1970).

124 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I24 I

18 (Subject matter jurisdiction is an issue that may behaiced for the first time on a meal; it may not be waived by the Daition) and quite. So: Taylor Zinc Vs Autostrongile SuHlyt 189. Su3d 552, 629 TEX. APP: Fort Worth, 2005) cithing Blend ISDVS. Blue 34 Su3d 549, 553-54 (Tex.Crim. APP. 2000) TEX: Asin Bus VS. TEX. Air Central * 852 Sw2d 440, 443 (Tex. 1993). "The doctrine ofstanding is implicit in the concept of subject matter jurisdiction:and quote" See: TEX. Asin Of Bus*. 852 Sw2d at 443. "We reukew standing as a commonent of subject matter jurisdiction, de nous." and quite. See: Atington VS. S&;Hl&; 117 Sw3d348, 349 TEX. APP. Forth Worth, 2003.

19* Defiant assert that Hemoralls judge Matt Johnson and his"subordinates" all are well aware of the "lawe" of this state and the United States on jurisdiction; whereby the District Court (54th)is without subject matter jurisdiction to "by" the offenses of"2vading Orient" Retention With, J. Motor Vehicle, Presumers to Sex. Penal. Case Sect 38.04 (b); which are Class A, misdemeanors.

20 See: Calton Vs. State&; 132 Sw3d. 29, 33 TEX. APP- Forth Worth, 2004); and Calton Vs. State 176 Sw3d 231, 234 (Tex. Crim. APP. 2005), that the charged offenses by state are classified as Class A, misdemeanors, and that Hemoralls Judge Matt Johnson is "without jurisdiction"; to "by" said causes: 2013-2073-C2 and 2013-2331-C42.

21 Also affiant assert that the United States Enframe Court hasheld the "Racial Discrimination" in the solution of a grand jury or for the future, render such a conviction "void". See: Long . TEX. Crim. 262, 340 0 S w2d 58 (1960); State 169 TEX. Crim. 59, 331 Sw2d 310 (1960); Davis 374 Sw2d 242 (Tex. Crim. APP. 1964); Castanda Vs. Partida 430 U.S. 482 (1977); TEX. Crim. APP. 1973); Dillard 134 TEX. Crim. 220, 115 Sw2d 415 (1938); VasouEZ Vs. Hillevy 474 U.S. 254, 263; 106 Set 617; 88 LED 2d 598 (1986); EXPANE CAVESN* 277 Sw2d 109, 110-111 (Tex. Crim. APP. 1955).

22 QWiant butter asent that the District Attemue, Abelino Reyns and Amanda Billion both are "without Jurisdiction" to buy" calles # 2013-2073-C2 and 2013-2331-C2, Post the state at 40 U.S.C. Section 3255 , with specific reference to interfortune note # 14; QWiant do Reely request that the "Coast" ORBER" both District Attomues to "Practiced Administration", Oen the state to establish "there" Criminal Jurisdiction to try the "fraudulent cause" before the coast. 23 QWiant assert that the trial court has knowingly, intertiont allly deliberatly and maliciously waived QWiant Paist of (5) 566 F1, the trial Court is without subject matter Jurisdiction. See: Taylor's (6) 5 W3d 522,529 (TAX, APP-FoM World, 2005). 24 QWiant the authority of the administrative Proceding act at 5 U.S.C. Section 555 (D), "Burden of Proof", the Proponent for a rule on order bears, the Burden of Proof, the Extreme Court has stated that if any tribunal Court's funds absence of Proce of Jurisdiction over Porsen and subject matter, the case must be dismissed" and quet. See: Louisille Is Matley# 211 U.S.149. 25 QWiant assert as buth that the State of Texas, through its representative has with "MALICE", waived QWiant. That "Joint No. 1" Brier Fack (B)turisdiction, in an attind to secate its Burden of Proof"; whom has failed to establish its Jurisdiction by document ation and therefore, a "judgment of acquitted is required by of etation of law." 26 QWiant assert as buth that "he" has been convicted and sentenced on the basis of "mistaken facts and, unbounded assumptions"; a Class A, Mademearon. See: Townsend Is Butte 334 U.S. $736-741(1948)$ . 27 See also: QWiant's memorandum of tain supporting a quom ents and legal citation in support of QWiant's tinses State Ualts of Babers, Berfus, all three (3), documents were filled on March 30, 2055, and of which the trial court has "reduced" to tist and and address every issue. Point asserted theresh. Due Proces and equal Prafect on Plague Relations with malice, QWiant suffere from mental anguish, emotional and mental distres and Propectal tain.

28th Armorable Judge Matt Johnson was Prejudice and Bice in Herbalty, "dining Alliant Nation for Self, Refresentation without an independent heelings and without a written order, which amounts to 'Pacloil Discrimination', denial of Dve Power of Law, Dve, Couries of Law and the Equal Protection (Causes) and the Trial Judge "Forced" of Plural to zeceft the third Prejudice and Bice defense allowed of record whom refused to put on the defense for the 899999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

Albionist of 50000 Ciaig Mack. State of Jonside County of Andlstone Cause No: 2013-2331-CA2 Ex-Patite Craig Mack On March 30, 2015, a 9301 -cant filled tass (2) State. Wilt of Habeas conkus Pwauant to tex. Code. (vith. Rro. Art 3 f. 07, and, Ytendant to tex. R. AP. Pro. 73, a Memorandum of Qay, with legal intentions and profesiting arguments, which the trial court Kneuingly, of eliberately short intentionally yuth'MALTEE'refused to ocfirmilatize and mention due to "their" Prejudice and Etaw? Then on 08 niil. 07, 2015, the State through its-representative, Sleeting Havmon filled," State's Answer to an application for Wilt of Habeas Conkus, see the second Pseagraft: "Concerning the need for On Evidentiarue Leering" letter that Reads Verbatim: "To evidentiary learing is needed in wathanted under this a 9301 -cation, because any information could be obtained by affidauit in Whomios", and quite *Please note also page 1us 12, "Second Pseagraft: "Answer of the State, the last sentence under the first gremed for relek states in liatim: "The QPPIcant alleges no matters which support a back jurisdiction by the trial court" and quite. * QPPIcant asserts as the truth, the whole truth, that the trial court Kneuingly, intentionally and maliciously stated this "Purly statement" Kneuing that it was "false and intentionally misleading." * Please QPPIcants Memorandums of faw Pseagrafts 48 - 1, and ated Caltab Us State: 1765 us 3d 234, 234 (Tex.CAm. APP. 2005), that the change of Paves are by State. Cbass. A. Wiedemennon and the have the trial court is without jurisdiction as a judgment of bequittal must be entered.

• The trial court has frequently, intentionally and maliciously violated APPIicants. With and goothornh amendments right to the meshes and the equal Prateation Clause, in 'refluxing' to addreser all grounds. Presented therein who which helio shall be granted. *II an issue. Presented in an APPIEicants Brief, is sufficient if it directs the attention of the APPIEate Court to the senior which which comtainst is made, and quote: See: White's State $\$50$ S W 2 d 31,45 (Tec. APP-Waco 2000 quoting: bankheads ( 35 S N 2 d at 163 and MNDA Us Fivets) Exch $\$9905$ W 204836833 (Tec. APP-Fort Worth, 1991).
• APPIicant resents as the truth that, in his Memorandum of Eaw he 'Charkly Points out 'eujettivior asserted therein the of'figation for what of Address Civilis. Filed in March 30, 205 alone with the second-mung Memorandum of Eaw, and that the trial is denying aPPIicant is his constitutional right to be "blood". *II as a matter of the Process, an effender may not be contoured on the basis of mistaken facts in unfounded assumptions" and quote See: Town send &; buvk of 334 U.S. 736-440-741(1948).
• APPIicant resents as the truth that the trial court has fraudulentally, illegally and undamically charged and convicted apPPIicant on mistaken facts", a third-degid being, which is a Unas A Misdemeanons. by Statute under Calion of States 0132 S W 2 d 29.23 (Tec. APP-Fort Worth, 2804). Calion Us States 176 S W 2 d 231,254 (Tec. (vim. APP. 2005)
• "However, Silence can only equate with "Shand" where there is a legal or moral duty to restrind in which an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading, and must"
• The trial court intentionally and knowingly committed this "haundulent" act and, mission to test the higher Queds, the burt of Criminal affects. From being and ruling on "relevant issue", in said higher Court, "had already ruled in the cause of Calion UsSistes 1765 W 2 d 231,254 (Tec.(Cim.AP. 2005)
• See also: The ORISID, Page 2 of 3, states: "The trial co-urtdator mines that these issues can be resolved by affidatdent and a testing is not necessary. Therefore, the trial court bintra the following

wider." V.R. Vicha is lonely DREBED to provide this court with his affidabit addressing APPIicants claims and the issues deignoted about. APPIicant is lonely ordered to provide this court with my additional information on thee appticant belladse would be helpful to this court in reaching the issues presented herein. * The work of the Court is lonely DREBED: (1) is delluer to I.R. Vicha proare copies of: (a) The application filled on March 30, 2015 (b) The States consumer filled on April 07, 2015; and (c) This order; (d) To delluer to the Court of Criminal affects a copy of this order;

Unless a continuance is granted, all affidauits and Preah shall be filled with the work of this Court my letter from May 17, 2015. This Court will enter appropriate findings my letter from May 21, 2015." end quote. * APPIicant asked as the truth, the whole truth that the trial Judge order is 'freundulent' and 'intentionally' presents" misleading infor- mation." First, of all the trial court" refused" to acknowledge and adult into the trial court records APPIication legitimate filled Memorandom of how, which was filled with the APPIications, for the Babers confuses on March 30, 2015, addressing each front of, Ennob. * On May 13, 2015, appticant received a copy of the affidauit of J.R. Vicha, which was "all

For Whit My Address Corbus, adobers to the District (Berk) and once again the trial court "refined" to mention, address, or accept into the trial court methods aPlicant affictant, however, Judge Nett Johnson states on Page 2 of "Dondings and Confessions" Panahash $24 The affidant is found to be true, correct and worthy of belief, the affidant is accepted in all Purposes, and quote * A Plicant assert as truth that the trial Judge Nett Johnson clearly has shown theludig Bion and factual discrimination again. "he" believed aPPIant to be anything to hellnece the issues, however, the trial Ludge Refused to defnoundedge aPplicants affidant and Memorination of, saw which is a tatal misconiege of Justice violating aPlicants. Due theses of fay: Due Clueses faw and Equal Protection Clases of, the faw of this State and the United Statesis 5 th, 1st and 4 th Amendment, Volation Disciminstion * Please explain to aPlicant the Bias and theludice of, the trial court officials when deliberately, intentionally and maliciously these, nots, hadduland and false misinformation of the law and to deftine aPlicant by all of the constational frettcted rights under the Bill of Rights. Purposetully Discrimiation against the aPpleant a Poon "sauctulentally illegally and undamfully detained Prices. * All of these trial court document and oriees are "Pseudulant documents. Presented in a Confirucal to detrues aPpleant of this constitutional rights under the 1st, 5th, 6th, 8th and 4th amend of the U.S. Constitution, Article 5, Sections 3, 9, 510,313 and 314, of the Jowon Constitution. * S. Craig Mack, do briefly declare under Penalliy, of forying that the Porsing Rato and information are the truth, the U.K. sefent Elicant on this the 21st day of, May 2015

Case Details

Case Name: MacK, Craig E.

Court Name: Court of Appeals of Texas

Date Published: May 26, 2015

Docket Number: WR-31,203-06

Court Abbreviation: Tex. App.