Case Information

*1 IN THE SIXTH APPELLATE DISTRICT OF TEXAS AT TEXARKANA

RECEIVED IN The Count of Appeals Sixth District

JAN 162015 ROBERT TROU MELLURE, TEXARKANA, TEXAS, Debra Autrey, Clerk

FILED IN The Count of Appeals

JAN 162015

TEXAS, etals, Appellant

VIS

THE STATE OF TEXAS, etals,

DADDEES

DADDEES

DADDEES

DADDEES

DADDEES

DEAF

TO THE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SIXTH COURT OF Appeals?

*2

IDENTITY OF PARTERS

Robert T. mcelure, prose; appellant Hughes unit Rt. Box 4400 gatesville, t4 76597 Attorney General of Texas Mr. Stone, attorney for TOLS po box 12578 Austin, Tt 98711

*3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Interested parties. . . . . . . . . . . . . i

Table of contents. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

*4

IABEX OF AUTHORITES

STATE Darza v Levin 769 sudd 644 (Tek App Corpus Chrsit 1489) ${\rho }_3\partial -6$ .

*5

I.

TOTHE HONORABLE JUSTICES OF THE SIXTH COURT OF Appetals:

This Psppouse meclure will reveal falsehoods, misrepresentation of facts and a gross amount of unethical conduct comitted by stone why, is the attorney for T.B.C.S.

Frist and fremost stone in his motion for extension of time claimed that meclure failed to provide copies of certain pleadings. He alicdgely provided an affidavit. Stone failed to disclose a copy of said affidavit and staying true to Arm failed to disclose all exhibits, attachments he provided to the court in his brief.

Mellure re-asserts his appeal brief for those reasons he will only address the false hoods made by stone.

*6 Stone in his appeal brief at page 8, stated that he learned that measure failed to dis close a completely different lawsuit to the trial court. This is affa shood. I at the very first motion to dismiss filed by the first attorney of record, mr. filler only argued that measure failed to list one federal lawsuit, ie, langly, more over this legal argument is barred from court review. Because attachment a is not apart of the record nor Nus it the cause of dismissal because it was not brought up at any time. See, barau Levin, 764 S.M. 2d 644, (Tet. App.-Corpuschristi 1984)

II. Stone at page 9 addresses that measure can't show that livingstan failed to comply with state law. However, stone failed to show that measures claims are frivolous. more over no discovery has been had. and measure would have been permitted by law to add parties, amend pleadings if the trial court would have not abused their discretion for the one time. Be that as it may, stone misses that it is state law not prison rule measure is alleging living stone violated. And he failed to properly support his argument with case law.

*7

III.

Stone argues to this court that TOCs investigated the assault and concluded that no staffassault did not acur. This is a legal argument that is barred. The clerks record establishes that moclure did receive a broken nose and it shads all disciplinary cases for self-infliction were dismissed as false cases and moclure was given back his custody level. See, C.R. 303,304 . Stone is Krowingly mis repersenting facts to this court. Boles was fired.

IV.

The most grave offalse hoods made by stone is where is claims to this court that he did not receive any motion to amend complaint. This is a lie. How can moclure prove it? Its simple. Let us review the frist motion to dismiss see C.R. Pg. 13-19. In this motion they state moclure failed to disclose one federal lawsuit.ie, langly. This was filed on Fed. 6.13. on Feb. 27,13 moclure filed his amended pleading's curing all defects. As time went by two other attardeys took over the case.

*8 Store at Pg. 15 falsely argues that he was surprised and Pg. 14. of his brief. He goes on about how the court some how believed there is surprise or something. But if the court knew of the amend pleadings how can Stone Say he did not know? Furthermore, Stone Says that (me) meclure did not ever a pprise of the fact he amended his complaint to the court. This is another lie. See, R.R. Pg. 27 at 17 ... Moclure addressing the Court. In Chapter 14, there's no where in the chapter 14 mandatory language that gives the court authorization to dismiss a lawsuit that has merit. It does not also say that the prove litigant does not have the ability to amend his complaint and to cure the deficiencies. If I had my legal work here today, I would quote Supere court case law and teess law supreme law that supports my position that allows a pro se inmate to amend his complaint to cure the deficiencies before a motion to dismiss is ruled upon. I quoted that, I would be able to show 400 black letter law on that, and that defeats his argument.

1. please remember the prison officials illegally seized melver legal case file he was taking with him to the hearing. walking out of prison. Lr. Spivy took all his property and said meclure will not leave with it.

*9 meclure went on to address that he repeatedly requested that boles and langly be served by which the trial court refusing to do so. See, R.R. 2, at 15 -do.

At no time did stone raise any"alarm" or"sum "surprise" as he boldly claims before this court. Its all a lie. Storedidwt act confused or object or at all ask the Court what is meclure talking about. Why? Because he knew meclure amended his pleadings but because of the trial court violating meclure's due process and not recognizing the state laws under Rules of civil procedure. Stone had to stay in firm other wise he would had no argument at all. So he didn't say anything. meclure also points out in stones motion to dis miss he completely changes tact. Why? If stone really didn't know meclure amended his pleading's he would have addressed a chapter 14 error but he didn't because he knew meclure corrected all his errors.

Case lies, lies, lies. Its always lies at meclure's expense, always attac ing him personally, or his character as stone enjoy's doing even here at direct appeal. stone try's and defame meclure.

*10 CONCLUSION

Stone has deliberately tied to this court. measure is entitled to a reversal. His claims have not met any transactional test of any kind. and all other attachments or legal arguments raised for the first time are barred from review. See, Data v Levin, 769 Sw. 2d 644, (Tev. App. Corpus Christi 1989), (Appellate court may only consider evidence on file before trial court at time of hearing which gave rise to appealed-from order)

PRAVER

Strike stores brief in all parts he has tried to introduce evidence, legal arguments that does not pertain to appealed issues. Issue sanctions for stores false hoods.

Respectfully submitted.

Robert measure prose

TOC# 1420457

Hughes unit.

RTL box 4400.

gatesville, t + 76577

San. 7,15

*11 Certificate of service

I, a bert melore do state I mailed a true copy to attorney general at pabos 12548 Austin, to 7871 on San. 9th, 15 using Hughes Unit indigent mail program.

Melvile, R. San. 9, 15