Case Information
*1
Into The Texas Supreme Court, and for It's JUstices3 Supreme Court Building, 201 West 14th Street, Room#106 Austin Texas 78701
In Re: sims Andre Delivenee-Pro Se Applicant-Relator in Pro se capacity Versus, Abel Acosta,et la,as Chief CLERK for the Texas Court of Criminal Apppals, Sharon Keller,et al,as presiding Thie document contains sOMMT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS (2) of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,Trial Court's Officials,et Reges that are of poor quality Respondent(s) at the time of imaging.
53,109,100 mandamus to enforce the law on Case#765557-Tr.Ct. &; Case# 53-692-04-6-05, of the Tex.Ct.Cr.&pp.
RECEIVED IN
(3) of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals,Trial Court's Officials,et Reges that are of poor quality Respondent(s), Let there be understanding, NOW appearing in writing, before this said CourtOne, Sims Andre Delivence, the Applicant-Relator in Pro se capacity, and in the above said case, and cause of action, sub judice, brings [t]his request-ed application for a writ of mandamus against Abel Acosta, an assumed chief clerk of the Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas or and the justices, of that COUERT ofCriminal Appeals, as recalcitrant Respondent(s) who have unlawfully and Unconstitutionally suspended the 'Living Constitution of both the State of Texas and of the United States of America's, by suspending Applicant's/Relator's[herein]= absolute rights to petition these said Couets and their judges, of reddreses ofhis Constitutional rights violations, Civil rights violations &; violations of the Laws by said Respondent(s) and will show further the following insupport: 1.3. on or about , Your Relator, sub judice, had filed his Application for a writ of habeas corpus to be issued upon Relator's claims of void judgment re-10 by the trial Court and its presiding trial judge. For proceding to trial based upon a fraudulent and forged issued indictment-by the Prosecutor's over trial Ceuse#765557. This issue was never presented and may be raised at any time or stage of an Appeal. See Hamilton V.NCcotter, 172 F.2d 171,183-84 (5th Cir.1985); (case law cited); State V. Chatman, 671 F.2d 531,538 (KAN.1983); YX Parte Seidel, 39S.W.3d 221,224-25,$ n.4(Tex.CW.App.2001). B) There is no-extent True Bills of Indictment, under cause#765557.THUS, so therewas never any actual returned Grand Jury Indictment or Grand Jury Panel's TrueBills of IIdictment for the trial Court's conviction, nor any other Court of lawwithin the State of Texas. Although Relator was, or is charged with some kind of Murder offense, that trial Court's judge lacked subject-matter jurisdiction overthe cause for the criminal allegations &; Party(s) of interest,-Y'cour Relator... Relator's solid and concrete evidence and facts that has exposed fraud or fraudulent &; fake indictment &; its rationalization &; motivation ase suppressed by the Respondent(s), and its refusal to execute &; actually file, docket, process &; present Relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus, &; it's attached-but separate memoranduniof la, along with Relator's exhibition insupport of the is sance of of the writ of habeas corpus. Mainly, the alleged indictment as Relator's exhibit-1-A, &; 1-B. However, these issues of void judgment &; de- : Trade Practice Actby the Prosecutor's were, are continuing to be suppressed by said Respondent(s)who refuse to perform its own sworn to duty, &; obligations to properly process &; execute Relator's legal documents, as his private &; personal liberty interin, thatcan be enforced under Civil Rights Act of 1960. See Title 42 U.S,C.§§111,1974(e),1975d;18 U.S.C. U.S.C. Stat. 86(1960); And the Civil Rights Act of 1057, includes Title .U.S.
*2 C. U.S.C. Stat.634(1957);and also see the Ethics In Governemnt Acts of 1978, Title 2 U.S.C. et seq;5 U.S.C. 18 USS.C. U.S.C. Stat.1824(2948), amended96 Stat. 2039(1983). These provisions cited are for the benefit of the People at large, even before any appeals are sought to remedy those provisions being violated by said trial Court's officers. Inwhich are enforceable under the ClaytonAct, as an Act of law too supplement ealier laws, including the Sherman Act (q.v,) ofalbst unlaw restraints and Monáplies, i.e., Title 15 U.S.C. et seq;18 U.S.C. et seq; 29 U.S.C. Stat. 730 (1914);Hence, by Relator being denied acces to the Constitutional Courthouses, and or Common-law in violation of Your Relator's First Amendment rights, pasasubsetUnited States Constitution.(1791). Which includes but not limited to, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution of America. Thus, Relator pionts to Civil remedies are avaiable,'if, and only if ?', the Courthouse is open to Prisoners, as Relator under false arrest, and iillegal incarceration. Which the threat of "habeas copus serves as a necessary additional incentive not only prior to trial but an appeal vehicle for appellate Courts to apply in Cases as Relator's, eả the Writ of habas Corpus is acceptable remedy through out the Land, as Courts can conduct their proceddings in a manner consistent with established Constitutional standards.e. g, Desist V.U.S., 394 U.S.244,262,63,89 S.Ct.1030,1041 (gohnsen V.Puckett, 929 F:2d 1067,1071(5th Cir.1991)(citation omitted, but cases similar)in grand jury proceedings being omitted)or unconstitutionally selected);Cf.Deleon V.District Clerk, 187 S.W.3d 473,474-475 &;,n.1-5(Tex.Cr.App, 2006) Case law cited therein). However, Abel Acosta, or and the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals justices dismiss[ed] Relator's Application for a writ of habeas corpus, without justification in the law, or assumingly, under Article 11.07, § 4(a(-(c)(TCCP). This assumed reference cited in an unmerification, and anattested simple white cardias personally editengngcensoring Relator's documents presented, and suppressing Relator's current claim-s-, and colorable issues that have not been, and could not have been presented prewoously in his original habeas corpus application, because state court Appointed alleged defense cousel(at trial) committed constructive brach of its fiduciaryduty; keep records from Relator, and such issues were thus not discovered untill early in may of 2015; and therefore, Relator's void judgamit issues were not previously considered in any application for habeas corpus wrs, filed as these factual and legal claims mentioned herein, are errors of law based on unavailable and unresolved issued on the date Abel Acosta or and the justices claim-in somesubsequent date prior to -received and dismissed -eightht(8)-day-s-later...11.07, §4((a)(1)-b(2)-"arguing further Relator presented a duplicated copy of the indictment, by the trial court, being fatally defective, in that it was lacking most, if not all the essential and Constituent elements of the offense sought to be charged', and thus,'was more then a mere prepondence of the evidence. to conclude, that but for the trial court/judge's viclation of Relator's federal-
*3 guaranteed rights, based on violations of the United States Constitution of American, and that violation caused Relator's liberty interest to be forfieted, even though no rational juror could have ever have found this Relator quidy beyonda reasonable doubt that he committed such act of murder...This is a legal basisfor his error of laws by the trial Court's trial judge.'his claim(s) that was not available on or before the assumed date implied by the said white card or AbelAcosta, and of the Justices of the criminal Court of Appeals, unjustification in dismissing Relator's Constitutional violationsclaims argued in his writ of habeas corpus petition and carried unto his subsequent writ of mandanes to compel the trial Court's habeas corpus judge as act and perform its ministerial dutiesas required by law, and thereby, are claims the trial Court's judge intentionally failed to do its duty in pro'sessing Relator's actual petition's factual and legal basis that was not ascertainable through the exercise of reasonable diligence on or before or or ,,untill Relator's peralegal[inmate's] assistant discovered said ground of error of law-based on the defective and fraudulent indictment...In turn, any prior submitted or assumed presented issues were not this Relator's main issues of claims presented herein and previously, as the void judgment claims not recognized by thes Texas Court of Appeals justices, and thus, no prior decisions could have been reasonably been formulated from any final decision ons by said Appellate Court's justices-jurisdiction of the State of TexasIbidate&; ; This misapplication of law by an unsignedremark or comment in the said white card dismissal is evidence that Respondent'(s) inactions, erroneous actions, and failure and refusual to act upon Relator's setof petitions entitled, "Application for a writ of habeas corpus, and separate butattched findings of facts and conclusions of law, with an ORDER ", is what cause-dthe improper, and irregularity of Relator's case sub judice, asabohbe improperetyprevented the proper, and actual correct presentation of Relator's case inchief-to this Texas Court of Criminal Appeals. In misapplication of the law, the Court of Criminal Appeals has rendered, 'due to its derelicition of duty', a decision that conflicts with its own precedent, with this Texas Supreme Court's preceoent, and with ybits the Unstates Supreme Court's precedent, including precedent of the FifthCirciut Court of Appeals.on the same issue.e.g., Garcia V.Dial, 596 S.W.2d 524,528(Tex.CR.Apg.1980); Dennis V.Steate, 647 S.W.2d 275, supra(tex.Cr.App.1984); Cook VSState, 902 S.W.2d 471,478,N.13-16,(Tex.Cr.App.1995), id.ot 476,&; N.6,7;Carrillo V.State, 2 S.W.3d 275,277,N.5(Tex.Cr.App.1999);Davis V.State, 227 S.W.2d 733,736,N.1-3(Tex.CR.App, 2007); State V.Hoff, 154 S.W.3d 599,601,N.1-2(Tex.Cr.App. 2004);Cf Hamil- ton V.McCotter, 172 S.2d 183-84(5th Gir.1995), citing Hollingworth V.State, 87 S.W.Tex.Cr.R.399,221 S.W.978-79(1920);Cf.U.S.V. Benderach, 72 F. 2 d 463,465 (5th Cir. 1995 95)(citation omitted);U.S.V.Henry, 268 F.3d 657,661 (5th Cir.App. 2002);U.S.V.Flores 404 F.3d 320,324(5th Cir.(5th Cir.2005), id.at 324, &; N.5;Gonzalez V.Croaby, 545 U. S.524-535-536,126 S.Ct. 2641, surpra(2005),U.S.V.Ruiz, 536 U.S.622,628(2002);U.S.V.-
*4
- Cotton, 535 U.S.625,620(2002). Thus, the Texas Supreme Court's justices should- no doubt find that the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals appears to have miscon- struck a statute, rule of law, as it has so far departed from the accepted and usual course of judicial proceedings, and so far sanctioned such a departure by the lower Court of A.ppeels, as to call for an exercise of this Texas Supreme Cou-rt's justices-power of supervision. See Continental Coffee Products Co.V.Cazarez, 937 S.W. 2 d 444,449,6 n.2(Tex.1596). "As this legal matter sub judice is concern-ee, when a particular statute[Att.I, §10, &; 12, Tex. Const.];Att 11.07, §3(b)(etc), Tex. C.C.P) creates a cause of action, the Court's jurisdiction depends on that incica ted statute; subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be presumed and cannot be waived "Since lack of jurisdiction makes a judgment void not just voidable? Id: Qopco V. 8 Forrest, 795 S, W. 2 d 700,703 (Tex. 2990) (amse); Cf. Beebe V. Jelpa, 890 F. 2 d 774,776(5th Cir.1981)(supreme Court precedent cited therein). C) This Texas Supreme Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Texas Court ofCriminal Appeals, pursuant to Article 5, § 5A of the Texas Constitution, and Art. 4.16(TCCP); Texas Government Code, §̧̧̧̇i.a221(b); Texas Supreme Court's Rule 52.1,52.58.9(b)(1),(2),(3), 6 (c), 57.3,57.4,58.5,60.2(a)(d),(e),(6)(f), 60.3,60.6,72.1,72.2; and 52.7(a),(1),(2),(b), and id.at 52.3(e);44.3 &; 44.486)(1),(2).All these provisions apply when an Apqellate Court dismisses an appeal, with out correcting the trial Court's inaction or improper-illeyal actions to adopt and allow an illeyal third Party' (s) intervention, and thus its[Er.Ct.'s] erroneous failure to a act as requested by this RELATOR - is a failure to perform it's ministerial outy and function under the facts and law of this Relator's habeas corpus case. Henece, the court of Criminal Apeels/Respondent(s) inactions prevented the proper-presentation of this Relator's case at bar, and could not have duly considered Relator's petition based upon his ground one error of law. Regarding the trial court and it's presiding judge lacking subject-matter jurisdiction. A none wavable issue, nor right, nor can such jurisdictional defectlbe forfieled, not even with consent of all, or any Party(s) of interest...Wrose yet, the trial Court's habeas corpus judge or intruder, refused to accept Relator's compulsory counter-claim ayainst those third Party interveners. Thus, the trial court failed to act in ruling on both habeas corpus petitions, and of the said counter-claim. Inwhich, prior tothe trial Court's judge or and its Clerk(s), decision to forward some application for a writ bi habeas copus to the Texas Court of Criminal Apeels, Relator timei ly sent, and submitted his 16-page Application for a writ of mandamus to said Ap_ pellate Court. Inwhich an inayed nescibis stamp-mark as ABEL ACÓSTA, CLERK. Who did not sign such a remark or comment implying it received and presented to the[notthis ?-]Court. Dated 7/13/15'6 then aupposely denied without any written Orderon 8/5/15... And altnough this remark of this: c a written order is implied, there is no indication the white card is in afact an ORDER OR JUDGMENT. This in fact is an error of law, and evidently is defects in procedures applied or used by said Respondent(s). Futhering this argument, Abel Acosta, and or a single jastice does 10 t have power to dismiss either writ of habeas corpus or writ of mandamus. Ser.
*5 Rule 10.04(a) (1),(2)(Tex.R.App.P.)- "in part':' But in a Civil case, a singlejustice should not -[sic] act on a petition for an extraordinary writ, ;[n]ordismias or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion tor rehearing'Id. D) This white card distribution brings tho same results in a majority of attanpted appeals by falsely imprisoned inmatmod. Your Relator sub judice, and sucha result is[a]permanently probibibing unprecedented set of circumstances under a-common-practice of a pattern of decision-making founded upon a preference as apposed to reason and facts-which is an arbitrary act, 'that can not be of a judicial decision.Muithless a decision on the merits of any particiblar case. Aruitray procedure acts are factors that runs afoul of the Legal Due Course, and Proceas of law . See also Rule 15.1(a).. TA urit or process must be ajined and bearthe Appellate' Court's seal'tid... Thus, such white card is processed so deiective,that no Clerk chose to sign such void comments of remark-of denied without a written Order...The Respondent(a) would not even identify the error of law argued by Relator, so as to correct any Constitutional violation of the law by the trial Court's judge...In othervords, Relator's violation of laws cited,extensively contend that the trial court did not have jurisdiction over the subject-matter, and PERSON of integergarty of interest that is claiming the Prosecutor'(s) void inEictment failed to charge an offepse or and failed to charge Relator with thecommission of a crime. Not just state Court Appointed defense Counsel committee breagh of his/her fiduciary duty, by failiny to challenge the Convicting Court's jurisdiction over the defendant/Appellant and subgect-matter.Maily, because the alleged criminal indictment was so fatatly deiective, that it omitted most, if not all the essential and Constituent elements of the offense sought to charged by the Prosecuting team. Hamilton V.MBCotter, supra, 172 F. 2 d at 183-24, &; N. 25.21,22; Fisher V.State, 887 S.W. 2 d 49,56 (Tex.Cr.ApP.1994). and see Ylat V.Nunnenbaker, 501 U.S. , in part: "PRESUMPTION, this Court must considerthet Applicant's second claim regarding the sufficiency of the indictment are not procedurally barred; State procedure bars are not immortal, but, they may expire because of late actions by the Statens Courts.'If', the last state court reaches the merits it removes any bar to federal Court review that might otherwise hhave been available; and recognized that somethin the memebers of the Court issuing an unexplained Order [REMARK] will not themselves have egged upon its rationale, so that the basis of thefcddecision is not merely undiacclsed,but none-entistance? Id.cited in Cone V.Bell, 129 S.Ct.1769, supra(2009)(similar cpotention); William V.Collins, 602 F.Supp.1530,1533-35,1536-44 (W.O.Tex.1992) Thus, hereintoo, the 'respondent(s) did not actually consider, nor ruled on Relator's [applicant's] claim concerning the stated insufficiency of the indictment, ineffective assistance of trial defense counsel'IP: This Relator, regardless of the trial-habeas corpus judge, and or its clerk's inaction, and deviation from the normal rules of law, has contended that his subsequent alleged application involved the invalidity of his conviction, as cnaflenying the trial Court's jurisdiction, over the cause . So art.11.07 et see is available. But Relator can only compel the habeas court judge or its clerk to file Relator's actual petition for a writ of habeas corpus, and then writ of ---
*6 mandamus ayainst said trial Court's Clerk(s) or and habeas judge preaidibg over this case sub judice, and therefore, the assistance of this supreme court of Texas supervisory power can remedy the Guapchit'(s) error of law, as an erroneous inaction and refusal to act and perform his/her/their ministerial function to correct the trial court's exror of law, and intentional failures to act apentRelator's factual and legal basis for his error of law one, as his ground one error of law. In dismissing Relator's writ of habeas corpus petitio, and a timely writ of mandamus, the Respondent(s) has not followed the cammonds of the rule oflaw.Jurisdictional issues,Constitutional rights &; law violations or the Constitutionality of a Statute, as well as Brady law violations in in the category of nonwaivable issues and claims of rights being violated, and cannot be applied to the abuse of the writ act.e.g., Keeter V. State, 105 S.W.3d 137,142-143, &; 0.17(TeX. Rppig 2003), citing Marin V. State, 851 S.W.2d 275,279-80(TeX Cr.Apg.1993). Thus, the Respondent(s) overlooking the trial court's arbitrary acts or usurpation of power and have not found that there are no set of facts which can or cannot prove helator's allegations/accusations in his petitio for either the writ of habeas corpu, nor the writ of mandamus-Complaint(s). But Relator's accusations, based on his trial court's exbibitation-derivatively from said trial court's record, and used as his exbibitation to support vacature of his conviction(s). In fact, the Respondent(s) has not even implied or expressed they[justices] have adopted some proposed findings of facts and conclusions of law by the trial court's habeas judge or its Clerk(s), as such facts involve issues challenging the trail court's jurisdiction. Moreover, Respondent(s) has not even implied it has construed one or the other'Barty'(s) facts most favorable to either one ? Since the fatally defective processed white card even omitted what or whose issues were heard, and no groundsof any kind have been provided for dismissal of Your Relator's Claim(s)...Claims that set forth in his memorandum of law, and contentions in said memorandum of law have been corroborated with records from the trial court, used as Relator's in hibitation insupport for his simplified pleading, so as to carry his own burden relating to his facts--all of which claims have cited authority providing a viable legal ground[or theory] for seeking relief on These/his Pleaded statements and-accusations.Respondent(s) inaction or its recalcitant Clerk(s) (Abel Acosta, et al) who refuses to filcdand process Relator's actual petition, has unjustifiably dismissed Relator's petition(s) inspite that dismissal does not conform to procecuralcommonds for writ of habbas corpus or and writ of mandamus, and for these stated reasons, Relator's request for mandamus relief should be gramt ayainst Respondent nt(s)...Whom has infered ot implied that Tex. Code Crim. Proc.Art.11.07, $(4)a)-(c)may be its basis, even though that impliement is a misapplication of the coorectStatute's subsections...Wrose yet, Respondent(s) does not identify the recordsthat Relator has presented, as submitted exbibitation; along with its records that contain the information being complaint of and including but not limitedtec, the third Party'(s) ILEEGAL and unlawful motion praction submitted by them/she/-
*7 he, and. thus, commit abuse of the[ir] judicial power. See also In re Taylor, 28994 S.W.2d 686,248 (Tex.App.-[10th Dist.],Waco 2000), "Conditionally granting mandamus where inmate presented sufficient proof that the district judge failedto consider and rule upon his motions, and pleadings, among other favorable findEings:Id;In re Martinez-Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d 682,683 (Tex.App.-San Antonio [4th Dist at.],1998)orig.pro.), this said Court found an abuse of discretion in failingtoGonsider and rule on a substantive motion, in addition to, without Relator even requesting at any extent, requiring the trial Court to consider scheduling a hearing on the merits of Relator's motion[Applicant's pleading for stricking Joshua Vincent and Andrew J.Smith illegal brief presented]as signed by them on orabout , or in the alternative, Relator's presence, as required by the laws of habeas corpus, affording Relator bis own defense, with his on-hand-ready exhibits to personally show how and why those indictment's accusations are void ab initio. Case law and statutory law cited in RELATOR'S original writ of habeas corpus petition's memorandum of law, attached to his application. However,Respondent'(s) erroneous failure or refusual to act as requested by your Relator is a ministerial function that neglected its role in performing a judicial function as required by law under the facts of this Case sub judice, and therefore, propasly caused the rendition of an improper decision, or and prevell, 88 thls Relatorfrom properly and accurately presenting his cause of action to that same Apyellate Court, as if filed under citation#WR-53,692-04 &; 05/Tr.Ct.#765557. Thus, theRespondent(s) has arbitrarily acted in suppressing Relator's memorandum of law and not ruling in his opposition to the Phantom STATE'S answer to Applicant's. -Writ of Habeas corpus petition. This said defective process of service is inguite that the law governing Courts goncerning, and otherwise ruling upon, any sort of legal application, that includes mitions and writs that in effect seek judicial action and relief, has long been established as a ministerial duty imposed upon a Court [judge] of law. Nomak V.Berry, 156 Tex.44(1956), in apt: "Mandamus is designed to command a judge, among other aspectsto rule upon a properly filed motion within a reasonable time"Ic. Arguing futther and in the alternative, if Art.11.07, §4(a)-(c)(TCCP), were to apply, it's construction would not comport with the Riggator's Constitutional Riich of access to the Courtsgand a statutory right to 'file' his habeas corpus Application, along with it's separate memorandum of law, and its exhibits thereof too, pursuant to ARTICLE 12 of the Texas Constitution, and 11.07, § 3(b)(TCCP). Id.at Delean V.District Clerk, Lynn County, 187 S.W.3d 882,474-75(Tex.Cr. App. 206 06). In Relator's case at bar, the ghost Clerk's white card implies the application for 11.07 Writ of habeas corpus has been received and presented to the Court...but not file-d !, nor docketed upon the Court of Criminal Appeals docket, for sld application and it's memorandum of law to then be presented to a these ju dge panel; and plainly there upon the trial record its clear that Hebésocospus Respondents were never served the summons and complaint(s), and thus, never served any legal process of service, and thereby, no possible answer could have-
*8 been filed either. See also TMin V.Avilla, 991 S.W.2d 495,500 (Tex.Ap - Housion[1st Dist.], 1995. no pet.). Furthermoreover, a construction of Art.11.07, 4 -places the Constitutional puarantees jough upder the lats. 14th Amenduntes to U.S.r Const. Art.1, 5513 S 19, Tex. Const.) within the purview of due peocess of law sthe Equal protection of the law, and is thus, prob andecs because sadd abuse ofthe writ act ia a statutory authority, and subjects such a Constitutional right or and provision to statutory authority. See Cook V. State, 902 S.W.471,47d,n.1718(Tex.Cr.Ap. 1995). Then such denial of accese to the courts has caused a oeprivation of Relator's Constitutional rights of [sic] availing himself to the court of Criminal Apeals of Texas. Which includes State-Statutory rights of alternative options of access to that said Appellate Court, as well as thetrial court tor adores Relator's constitutional violation of rights complains, anc options youith jucically-created and interpreted precedent resolving in judicial deyreerationale. See Rule 7(b) of the Texes Rules of Judicial Administration&; Hudson V.Patmer(u.s.1904), cited at Martinez-Ramirez, 994 S.W.2d at 602-84; in that the"establishments for inmates would not be denied access to the courts as a result of their [His] status as in inmate?id;Cf. 5514.008 &; 14,012, Texas Civil Practice s Remedies Code \Vernon's 2003). 'Each of these forms of law have oony beensetted'tid... And this supreme court has held: "If an Act [Bill] is Unconstitutional, it is no law at allte.g., Miller V.Davis, 150 S.W. 26 973,135 Tex, 299,130 A.L.R.177(Tex.1942). In fact, this supeme Court of Texas, nas futher held that a atatecy cannot override the Texas Constitution Cramer V.Sneppard, 176 S.W. 20147,140 Tex. 271 (Tex.1941). And in Colden, this supreme court said that an utterlywold act [Bill] can have no effect to accomplish anything. Colden V.Alexander, 171 S.W. 26 320,141 Tex. 134 (Tex. 1943 ). This said unconstitutional procedure for addressing civil and Constitutional violations of rights and law is the least of art.11.07, 4 (a)-(c)(TCCP)'s proolems. Since the Wespontent(s) has held itself to express that "A-void law affords no basis for criminal prosecutionte.g., Ex Parte Halsted, 182 S.W. 2 a 475,147 Tex.Crim. 453 (Tex.Cr.Ap. 1944). Thus, the "meaning of the words of a Constitution at the time they were pleced therein cannot be altered or emented by an legislative body or key, tiation at a subsequent time TMEDETTwas V. State, 67 Tex.Crim.615,150 Sq', 2 d 162 (Cr.Ap.1912); Ex Parte Giles, 502 S.W. 2 d 774 (Tex.Cr.Ap.1973). "ANY-provision of aconstitution is self-executing to the extent that anything gone i. violation of it is void? Hemphill V. Watson, 60 Tex. 679 (Tex. 689 (). As we have known in the previous cases, Montgomery Amusement Co, supra, 139 Fad. 3567 358(1903), Aff'G,140 F.986, S Hunt V. State, 3 S.W.233,284, 22 Tex.Ap-(1886). "as perenacting clauses and their precise wording as proscribed bya State Constitutionare mandatory and not directorytID;Cf.Afford Q.City of Dallas, 738 S.W.2d 312,3186 as ante III.n.7-in partb" "No statute or law passed may impair[rights] transfer of Title or impa rights under contracts;and, as in this case at bar,"the Apyellantr Applicant'a pleadings must show that the impairment[frigodulent indicment]8. Civil.
*9 Contract)as circumstances described above-are in existance, said uncostitutional provisions, violated Relator's State of Texas and Federal Constitational rights, and is justification for [t]his cause of action to go forward. Especially since it involves the jurisdiction of the trial court, and it's trial judge committing arbitrary acts to by pass the Grand jury panel system, as required by law. Thus, using the judiciary authority to sua sponte a bills of Attainde er, in violation of Article I, 16 of the Texas Constitution? Id. II.A.
The Supreme Court of Texas direction if error of law is remediable.i.e., Rule 61. 4(Tex.R.App.P.).id.at Gl.4(a)(1),(2) &; (b). This Supreme Court can direct the Respondent(s) to correct its error of law in depriving Relator his Constitutionel rights of access to the COURT8 or it's Courthouse, and correct such denial ofhis Constitutional rights. Which are enforceable under the United States Constit tution, as it provides: "The Privilege of the Writ of habeas Corpus shall not be suspended, unleas when in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion of the Public Safety may requirelft?Id.at Art, I, § 9, Clause 2; inaccord with Art.11.04,11.05,11.23,1131,11.32,11.36 &; 11.40(TCCP);Art.11.07!3(b);Art.I, § 12(Tex. Const.).And see also Wright V. West, 0.8.475,485-86(1992)(citation in original);Preiser V.Rodriguez, 411 U.S.474,485-86(1978)(hebeas corpus appropriate method to challehged unlawfull Conviction, etc). Hence, Respondent(s) erroneous failure to file Relator's petition in contesting his [the] legality or illegality of his detention, not merely his guilt or innocence, is the Respondent'(s) acts of failure to perform it's legal duty, and owe such a legal duty to Relator, rather than willfully breaching it's duty and that breach is the proximately the cause of violating this Relator's Constitutional rights to petition the Government of redreas of his grievances complaint of herein above. Therefore, mandamus may be granted because the act sought to be compelled, is purely a ministerial act and as the Respondent(s) is the last State resort of addressing Relator's unlawful incarceration, there is no other adquate remedy available at law. Additionally, Relator does has a clear right to the relief he seekd-mainly because the merits of Relator's case are beyond dispute, inpprevailingbut only if the trial court's clerk or and its habeas judge, files all Relator's actual application for writ of habeas coppas, its memorandum of law, and its attached exhibition therewith said documentation. Inwhich the trial court's clerk has not been ordered to forward such necessarysaid documentation to the Respondent(s) and it's Appellate forum, i.e., Art.11.07, § 3(b)(TCCP), in part: $When the Application is received by that [trial] Court, a Writ of habeas corpus, returnable to the Court of Criminal Appeals, Shall issue by operation of law. The Clerk of that Court Shall make appropriate notations thDreof, asslyn to the case a file number(ancillary to thatof the conviction being challenged), and forward a copy of the application by certified mail, retirned recei, requested, or by personal service; but to the person -Custodian - having the Prisoner/Party under [illegal] restraint; in -his/her custody, as it is charged with such authority, and it is to exhibit thee
*10 Original, if demended; as there is no lawful right in the person[Custodian]exercising the power or where, though the power in fact exists, it is exercise. sed in a manner or degree not sanctioned by law; but that the person-custodian on whom the writ is served shall bring before the judge the person[Relator]in his/her Custodycser under its restraint, and thus, the legal Custodiandbe directed, be said Custodian, commanding it to produce such person, at a time and place named in the writ, and show why [?] he is held unabwfully in it's Custodyand restraint?Id, at Art.11.01,11.02,11.03,11.27,*11.31,11.32; and 11.14(1),(2)- (3),(4),(5)(5)-Id.at 11.14(2)-" When the PARTY is confind and restraint of his liberty, by viture of any writ, Order, or process or bader color of either, copyShall be annexed to the petition[Relator's memorandum of 15a]or it shall be stated that a copy cannot be obtained?Id..."is worded as a pleadingequirementand does not contain words of prohibition such as language found in section 4. of Article 11.07?e.y., Ex Parte Golden, 991 S.W.2d 859, at 862 (Tex.Cr.App.1999). To further emphasize these fatally defectiveprocedures under the trail Court's mbbeas corpus proceedings, there is no Order for the preperation of the trial Court's records/transcription of all pertinent legal paper documentation in cause#765557, and to have said transcripts transmitted to the Respondent'(s) App. ellete Court tribunal, pursuant to Art.11.07, § 3(b) &; (c) or (d)-for determining whether there were controverted, previously unresolved facts material to theLagality or illegality of'thi[ ]'confinement;'for the [void]offense of murderresulting from the [void] conviction that is the basis of this instant writ of-mandamus,-and the prevous writ of habeas corpus---buttas that trial Court reco ord reflects, 20 thideas, an. 8018509: 50 tor knows, there is nornotice of any trailCourt's[hbbeas judge's]decisions that there were or were no issues of controverted facts, before such assumed finding,'if any', material of otherwise provethat the presumption of validity of the conviction, is sufficient, applied to the alleged indictment, arrest warrant, and supporting affidavit(s),'if any', do actually appear regular in their faces: appearances. Because Respondent(s) own personal official business white card, as a notice of dismissal, or and receivement erroneouly fails to express or state the that transcripts where ORDERED to be in-cluded-as certified-and-authentic copies of the documents produced on appeal ?-by that Trial Court's Clerk(s) and seen, and ruled on by Respondent(s). Thus, the, Respondent's Clerk(s) had a duty and obligation[if as its burden 1] to includemy or all pertinent papers material to Relator's unlawful confinement. Such as the alleged indictment indispute, cause#765597,-which is factually insufficientand void as a matter of law, to support the illegal arrest or warrantless arrest, and said affidavit's insufficiency, can not possibly up hold Relator's conviction. See Rule 35.5(a) thur (h)(Tex.R.App.P): Contents:
Unless the parties designate the filing in the appellate Record by agreement, under RULE 2 , the record must include copies of the following(citations omitted). Ibid. Also see the rule that the Respondent(s) failed to apprehend when Ordering its Clerk(s) to forward the essential material evidence to the Appellate court Rule 36.3 (a)(1),(2) &; (b)(1),(2),(3) &; (*c)-Relator's petition's concluded with his = rquert,'with an attached-ready-made-proposed Order, 201 the Court's - 10. Civil.
*11 Determination of the original documents filed with it's Court's records of it's Clerk's office for inspection by the Respondent'(s) Court, [&; it's justiee--s]or sent to that Respondent'(s) Court in lieu of copies,-but the trial Courtmust make an ORDER for the preparation, safe keeping, transportation, and returnedof thos original documents... The ORDER must list the original documents andbriefly describedthem? Ifid... However, the white card merely imple, that an application for ORIG7 Writ of habeas corpus has been received and presented to someCourt..."not, that whatever was presented was to this[Tex.Ct.Cr.App]court, withAByEEr's COnoratofes of thee, and thee's a pliee of mye, and thee's Counter-clain, filed by the Applicant, Eddie D. Baker(or his retained lawyer, as cUSTODINN of record,)'s Answer or response(as Respondent on habeas proceedings, and all Baker's Exhibits submitted, if any, and filed, as setched thereofto; the original Indictmeent(s), or and any reindictment, judgment, sentence(s), and docket sheets, etc, . Id. at R.38.5(f)(TRAP);R.26.1(a)(3) &; (4), &; (b);31.1 &;22;R.33.1-"in that thes Relator's Case at bar, his complaint was made to the trail Court by timely objection to the third Party's intervention, and complaint's grounds clearly indicate that for arpopt ruling, as with certainspecification that was more than sufficientto make the trialhabeasjudge aware of the[his]complaint-wherein this Relator's Petition specifically stated it's grounds for relief, as such facts were apparent from this Relator's writ-petition's contents?id;R.37.2-: in part: UPON RECEIVING THE APPELLAME'S Appeal; and receiving the trial Court's record, the appellate clerk must determine whether each Clerk's &; Reporter's recpoda complies with the supreme Court's and that of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals Order on preparation of the record---'if so, the Clerk hasatendorae on each the date of re@eipt, file it, and notify the Parties of the filings and the date? Hence, the trial Court's record should reflect there was no Order to the trialCourt's Clerk(s) to send the Respondent(s) the transcripte and statement of facts to confer the jurisdiction of the APPELLATE Court. Mendian Mebopagesenent,Colley Gin Co, 430 S.W.2d 372, supra(Ex. 1968)Cf.Jordon V. State, 883 S.W. 3d 664,665(Tex.Cr.App.1994). Thus, the trial Court's Clerk was supposed to sent Relatora copy of an Order to prepare anGranscription of their record inchief, and Relator at his place of confinement and to the habeas Reppondent(s) for the state of Texas contracting firm. Which is TDCJ's prison Unit called the Mark Wayne Michael and the Senior Warden therefrom his place of business. That is a Constitutionalerror of law in its self. Mainly, because the trial Court's habeas corpus proceedr. ings were not certified by that trail Court and filed by it's Clerk prior to 8/27/2015-or before the application of habeas corps became returnable to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals/Respondent'(s) Appellate's form. Hence, because of all the abom mentioned defects in the Respondent'(s) procedures for either the witt of mandamus or and writ of habeas corpus, shathas writs implementation of law could be issued as an opperation of law, as provided under Rule 72.1 &;22.6the only gition to force the trial court's clerk to forward their transcripte in this case sub judice, was, as is in these proceedings, a writ of mandamus' to correct11.Civil.
*12 its action or inactions, as intentional failures to perform its ministerbal du:les. Therefore, the madamue was presented to the Respondent'ss) Court of Ap. eals als first prior to (under case ), and unofficially denied by Abel Acosta's name being used on a white carôbut denied leave to FILE the original application for a writ of mandamus. So sadd mandamus was never filed-to that Respondent'(s))Appellate Court, and never ruled on for a due consideration, and a decision thereafter, and thus, this calls for thi suprome Court's supervisory power to vacate the Respondent'(s) Order or decision of dimissal and reinstate Relator's cause of action, under further proceedings, in the interest of justice, for foemal defects, and irregularties, and not allowing Relator a reasonable time to coores or and amend his formal pleadings for want of jurisdiction-within his application and memorandum of law's information, if anything was actually in defective manner...Justice Holmes, once s&;d, "We are not speaking of mere disorder, or mere irregularities in procedure, but of a Case where the processes ofjuatice are actually subverted? Frank V. Mangum, 237 U.S.309,346-47(1915). The Truth of Relator's legal subject-matter in his want of actions are to recoper for his rights, under federal and Texas State laws, beiny violated, as unconstitutional incarceration will not accure corrective remedial proceedings, until Relator prevails in his requested mandamus relief action. Brown V. Edwards, 721 Fic 2d 1442,1448 (5th Cir.1984); Cf. Ex Parte Clear, 573 S.W.2d 224, supra(Tex.Cr.Ayp.1978) (citation omitted). Thus, the Texas Supreme Court's justices can hold that Relator has no other adequate remedy.Relator can not appeal the trial Court's void judgment order rendered by that trial Court's acting convicting judge, andthere &; no known other megal mechanism short of mandamus by which RELATOR may challenge Respondent'(s) decision or implied order to dimiss his writ of habeascorpus or and mandamus,-without any written Orders or and explanations... That are decisions contrary to, and involve-d an unreasonable application of, clearlyestablished Supreme Court, of the United, States, Texas Supreme Court, Texas Courtof Criminal Apperals, and Fifth Circiut precedent, and thus, conclusions opposite to that reached by said superior Courts rulings on the law, as well as decisions ona case differently than said superior Courts that have had a set of materiallyindistinguishable facts., and by such arbitrary actions, Relator has suffered anactual or/and threatened injury under such procedure bar, that restricks hêl cleer right to have the Respondent(s) vacate its implied or, decivisive orders, State ex rel.Hill V. Pirle, 887 S.W.2d 921,926-27(Tex.Cr.App.1994). Hence, there is well pleaded authority directly on point, as it appears without a doubt, and such procedural defects in either habeas or mandamus proceedings, clearly falls underthe category of structural error of laws, and it so infected the entire appeals processes that is should not be overlooked while the supreme Court's justicesare execising its jurisdiction over Relator's case sub judice. So mandamus is appropriate remedy. DeLeon, supra, 187 S.W. 8 d at n.1,2,4-5. Wherefore Premises Considered, this Relator prays that this Mupreme Court's 3 12. Civil.
*13 yrant [t]his Application and issue a Writ of Mandamus directing, Abel Acosta, and or which ever or whoever was, as is, the Respondent-recalcitrant-Clerk(s)or the Justete(s) who refuses to file and record Relator's properly-executed-documents/paper sent to its Appellate Court or if not sent, said Respondent(s) refused to file his mandamus application, but that instructions would include an Order for issuing an Order for filing and setting these present matters for asubmission and an evidentiary hearing, if needed, to afford Relator a full and complete hearing upon these factual and legal dispute, which, if resolved in his favor, would entitle him to relief, pursaunt to Relator's Claims of Constitutional errors of law, by trial and Respondent(s) /individuals in this Case, but thatthat Respondent(s) set aside the implied or decisive order rendered supportlyon August 25,2015 , and this said notice was received: 2015 (b) 2015 (both habeas mandamus writs bear same date)-in cause 768557 -Tr.Ct. W2-53,692-04-05, andRequest that Respondent(s) or its Clerk(s) send the record to this Supreme Court pursuant to Rule 20.1(g), &; 20.2 et seq(TRAP).As this Relator is[falsel imprisoned] is presently incarcerated, and to poor to pay the Court's fees/costs for any or all the original transcripts/records of the trial Court, and that of the RESPONDENT'(s)-records. But the indictment(s), judgment(s), sentence(s), Counterclaims, exhibits by Relator and some unknown Respondent'(s) are available to this Supreme Court through both trial and Appellate Courts files of their Clerks. Rule 54.2(a) to (b)(TRAP);39.9(a) &; (b) are invoked for briefing to be construed Liberally, as required in Hains V.Kerner, 92 S.Ct. 594 (5901), id.at 404 U. 2.519520. Mainly because Relator and his legal inmate assistant are not trained lawyers in the law, and should be entitled to less stringent standards than formalpleadings drafted by a traind lawyer? Id; A declaratory judgment tthat this cause of action is of such importance to the jurisprudence of this state of Texas that mandamus appeal should be allowed;incorporate AppealsTO Reason, paves 20 to24, cited in Texas Monthy, July 2015-Article, by Mini Swartz,-affirming Seventy direct death penalty appeals-of inmates cases.All heard between 2009 &; 2013-but that Article's point is this supreme Court can make things Righting: correcting the Respondent'(s) defective and unconstitutional procedures and make sure thatthe judiciary system doesn't go away and excute an innocent Person&;s. reference &; 5th Cir.Ct.App. [fed], case#06-1280;06-20517-rewarding related issues never addressed for lack of a competent lawyer or paralayal, but aypeal had merit before dismissed for failure to prosecute; dismiss the trial cuase#765557as void in-all charged offense alleged. And grant any other relief this Court deem Eit E meethe ends of justice. Ex Parte Young, 418 S.W. 2 d 824,826 (Tex.Cr.App.1967). so moved and prayed for this Writ of mandamus to be granted.
Repactfully submitted, Unit, at 2264 F.M. @&;, Tennessee Colony Texas, 75886, do hereby declare and certify under penalty of perjury, that I have read these foregoing mandamus information, &; verify that these stated matter are true, accurate, correct, on my belief, and I have provided the Respondent(s) a copy of the same, pursuant to Tex, Civ.Pract. &; Rem. Code, ,