Into The Texas Supreme‘Court,and for It's JUsticesB . """'
t ,‘ .Supreme Court Building,ZOl West 14th Street,Room#lOé »f

lo' `
.. b marin i»exa$` 73'/01 ' 65[ q£\,g(o
§>~Iane; aims Andre Delivenee-Pro Se l

4§policant-Relator in Pro se capacity §

§ mandamus to enforce the
' 4,@~= VEFSUS' _ § law on Case#765557~Tr.Ct. & Case$
Abel Acosta,et la,as Chief CLERK for \_,53_692_04_&_6 the Tex,Ct_Cr.app.
the 'l‘exas Court of Cr~iminal Apppals, § ll ER§&EIVED|N

Sharon Keller,et al,as presidin' ' '“ - .»
(S) of the Texas Court O_f Crimin:lj%?§&°°§|ment(;omamsWITQFQR'M‘NALAPPEALS
Appeals,Trial Court"s .Officials-, et pg §sth§tare° p°°rqualty SE 09 m_`

"A§'pli'~§@lmt”§ /U‘Slléa!t©lr"$ @Qtition for z§'§-\§.--Wr'it of Mandamus %Q§gélgqslghglargxas
Court of Criminal Appeals Clerk(s),or/and Justices,pursuanttto § 22.221(b)l
of the Texas Government Code§Articles 51.1,52.2,53(a)(l),(3).(*4),§5)[(A)5;
f(&)Z(f),(g),(h)¢(J)(l)¢(d))52.7(l)/(2),(b),(53)1,57.2,57.4;72.1 & (Tex,R}@
App.P):?B@F(a) & (b),& 44.43(TCCP);lst Amendment(U.S.Const§t§$F;n),Among~

4 other Texas and/Federal laws that Abply for Absolute Rights_

To The Justices of this TYxas Supreme Courthouse,its Clerk(s),Rspondent(s),

Let there be understanding.NOW appearing in writing,before this said Court-
One,Sims Andre Delivence,the Applicant-Relator in Pro se capacity,and in the
above ;aid casejand cause of action,sub judice.brings [t]his request-ed app-
lication for a Writ of mandamus against Abel Acosta,an assumed Chief_Clerk of
the.Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas or and the gustices,of that COUERT_of~/
Criminal Appeals,as recalcitrant Respondent(s) who have unlawfully and Uncono-
titutionally 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]€
obsolute rights to petition these said Couets and their judges.of reddress offll
~his Constitutional rights violations,Civil rights violations & violations of -
the Laws by said Respondent(e) and will show further the following insu§port:

' I.£. l '
on or about 7/6/2015,Y0ur Relator.sub judice,had filed his Application for a -
writ of.habeas corpus to be issued v@on Relator's Claims of void judgment re-
ganr<w@ by the trial Court and its presiding trial judge.For procedingsto trial
based upon a fraudulent and forged issued indictment-by the Prosecttor's over -
trial Cause#765557.This issue was never_presented and may be raised at any time`
or stage ed an Appeal.See'Hamilton V.McCotter,l?Z F.2d l7l,lB3-84(5th Cir.1985);
§case law cited);State V.Chatman,67l F.2d 531,536(KAN.1983);WX Parte Seidel,39~

, S.W.3d_221,224-25,$ n.4(Tex.CBlApp.ZOOl).

B) There is no-extent True Bills of lndictment,under Cause#765557.THUS/so there~
was never any actual returned Grand Jury Indictment or Grand Jury Panells True-
Bills of IHdictment for the trial Court’s conviction,nor any other Court of law~
within the State of Texas.Although Relator was,or is charged with some kind of ~
Murder offense,that trial Court's ]udge lacked subject-matter gurisdiction over-
the cause for the criminal allegations & Party(s) of interestv~Yoour Relator...

Relator's solid and concrete evidence and facts that has exposed fraud or fraudu-

lent & fake indictment & its rationalization & motivation ase suppressed by the

Respondent(s),and its refusal to execute & ac§ually`file,docket,process & presez

nr Relator's petition for a writ of habeas corpus,& it's attached»but separate -

#memorandumoof la¥,along with Relator's exhibitation'insupport of the issance of

of the Writ of habeas corpus.Mainly,the alleged indictment as Relator's exhibit-
l~Ai& l-B.However,these issues of void judgment & dedagtls¢ Trade Practice Act-
by the Prosecutor's were,are continuong to be suppressed by said Respondent)s)-
who refuse to perform its own sworn to duty,& obligations to,properly process &-
execute Relator's legal documentaias his yrivate & personal\liberty interest the
aatcan be enforced under Civil Rights Act of 1960.See Title 42 U.S,C.§§l£¥l,1974-

(e),l975d;18 U.S.C.§§ 837,1074,1509;20 U.S.C.§§~24l,640;74 Stat.B€(l§SO);And ~`x
the Civil Rights Act of l957,includes Title §§ 5.U.S. ~~< ***** --`y@

".- , i.civii.

‘-
'*x

 

:,v

C. §§ %#!((l9); 28 U. S C §§ 1343, 1861; 7l Stat. 634(1957) and also see the - 3d
Ethics In Governemnt Acts of 1978 Title 2 U S. C §§ 70l'et seq :5 U S C § 5317-.“
18 U$S.Cq§ 207:28 U.S.C.§§ 49,52$,529,591…598,1364 YZ Stat.1824($948),amended~

96 Stat.2039(l983).These provisions cited are for the benefit of the People at
large,even before any appeals are sought to remedy those provisions being viol-

ated by said trial Court's officers¢Inwhich are enforceable under the Clayton-

Act,as an Act of law too supplement’ealier laws,including the Sherman Act(g.v,)-
e§al§st unlaw restraints and Mon&plies,i.e.,Title 15 U.S.C.§§ 12 et seq;lS U.S.-
C.§§ 402 et seq;29 U.S.C.§§ 52,53:38 Stat.730(l9l4)%Hence,by Relator being deni-
ed acces to the Constitutional Courthouses,and or Common-law in violation of,;

Your Relator's First Amendment rights,pneean§detUnited States Constitution.(l7-
91).Which includes but not limited to,the Fifth and Fourtemnth Amendments tothe
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 und~

ver false arrest,and idlegal incarceration-Which the threat offhabeas`copus ser-

`ves as a necessary additional incentive not only prior to trial but an appeal -
vehicle for appellate Courts to apply in Cases as Relator's,as the Writ§pffhab-
as Corpus is acceptable remedy through out the Land,as Courts can conduct#their
proceedings in`a manner consistent with established Constitutional standards.e.'
g,Desist V~U.S.,394 U.S.244,262763.39 S.Ct.1030,104l(§ohnsen.V.Puckett,929'FLZd v
1067,1071(5th Cir.l99l)(citation omitted,but cases similar)in grand jury proceed-
ings being omitted)or unconstitutionally selected);Cf.Deleon V.Dlstrict Clerk,»
187 S.W.Sd'473,474-475 &,n.l-S(Tex-€r.App,ZOOG)QCase law cited therein).Howeverf

Abel Acosta,or and the Texas Qourt of Criminal Appeals justices dismiss[ed] Re~

'lator's Application for a writ of habeas corpus,without justification in the law,

or assumingly,under Article ll.07,§ 4(a{-(c)(TCCP).This assumed reference cited
in an unserification,and anattested simple white cardies personally editedngn&-

censoring Relator' s documents presented,and suppressing Relator' s current claim-

~s-,and colorable issues that have not been,and could not have been presented pr-'

eveously_in his original habeas corpus application,because State Court Appointed
alleged defense cousel(at trial) committed constructive brach of its fiduciary-
duty;keep records from Relator,and such issues were thus not discovered untill -
early in may of 2015;and therefore,Relator's void judgment issues were not pre-
viously considered in any application for habeas corpus wrt$?filed as these face

tual and legal claims mentioned herein,are errors of law based nn_unavailable ~

'and unresolved issued on the date Abel Acosta or and the justicesiclaim-in some-

subsequent date prior to 7/27/2015-received and dismissed 8/5/2015*ei§tht(8)-day-
s-later...ll.O?,§ 4((a)(l)~&(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 msaential and Constituent elements of the offense -
sought to be charged',and thus,' was more th en a mere prepondence of the evidence
th conclude,that but for the trial Couct/judge' s violation of Relator' s federalj`

23:~='& Civil ~

 

guaranteed rights.based on violations of the United States Constitution of Ame~,
rican,and that violation caused Relator‘ s liberty interest to be forfiated,even y
though no rational juror could have ever have found this Relator quiety beyond~

a reasonable doubt that he committed such act of murder...This is a legal basis
for his error of laws by the trial Court’ s trial judge.'his claim(s) that w "

 

available on or before the assumed date implied by the said white card or Abei~ v
Acosta,and ct the Justices of the criminal Court of Appeals.un'>ustification in -
dismissing Relator' s Constitutional violationsclaims argued in his writ of habe,
eas corpus petition and carried unto his subsequent writ of mandamss to compel ~
the trial Court's habeas corpus Judge a'a act and perform its ministerial duties-
as required by law,and thereby,are claims the trial Court' s judge intentionally
failed to do its duty in pro"essing Relator' s actual petition' s factual and legal
basis that was not ascertainable through the execise of reasonable diligence on -
or befosa 5/2015 or 7/27/]5 or 8/5/15,untill Relator' s paralegal[inmate' s] assist-
ant discovered said ground of error of law- -based on the defective and fraudulent
indictment...ln turn.any prior submitted or assumed presented issues were not thm
is Relator's main issues of claims presented herein and previuosly,as the void z
Judgment claims not recognized by thus Texas Court of Appeals 3ustices,and thus,no
prior decisions could have been reasonably been formulated from anyjfinal decision
one by said Appellate Court's gus tices~yurisdiction of the State of Texaslbddae&-

11~97)§~4(3)(1)'(2)'\&'W@W 3 ¢C)(TCCP)'This misapplication of lau by an unsiqned~
remark or comment in the said white card die =missal is evidence that Respondent (s)
inactions,erroneous actions,,and failure and refusual to act upon Relator' s set-
of petitions entitled,"Application for a writ of habeas corpus,and separate but~
attched findings o§ facts and conclusions of law,with an ORDER ",is what cause-d»
the improper,and irregularity of Relator's case sub judice,eoubshse inLropwvety~
prevented the proper,and actual correct presentation of Relator's case inchief to
this Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.ln misapplication cf the law,the.€ourt of -
Criminal Appeals has rendered ,‘due to ita derelicition of dutyl,a decision that
conflicts with its own precedent.with this Texas Supreme Court' s prc cceoent,and ~
with yhrs the Unstates Supreme Court' s precedent,including precedent of the Fifth»
Circiut Court of Appeals on the same issue e g.,Garcia V Dial 556 S.W.Zd 524,523-
(Tex.CR.App.lSSO);Dsnnis V.SEate,Sd? S.W.Zd 275,supra(tex.€r.npp.lee);Cook VSSt-
ate.§OZ S.W.Zd 471,478,N.13-16,(Tex.Cr.App.l§QB),id.at 476,& N.6,7;Carrillo V.St-
ate.Z S.W.Bd 275{277,$.5(Tex.£r.app.1999):Davis V.Stete,227 S.W.Zd 733.736,N.l»3-
(Tex;CR.App,2OGV):State V.Moff,l§é S.w.Bd 599,601,N.l~£(Tex.Cr.App»ZOOe);Cf wam§l*
ton V.Mccotter,172 B.Zd laS~Se(§th §ir~l$§$),citing nollingworth V.State{&? S.W.*`
TGX_CF_R,ggg,Zgl 5_W,g73-79(1920);Cf.U-S.V.Henderson,?£ F.Bd 463.465(5th Cir.1995
95)(citation omitted);U.S.V.Henry,Z&B F.Bd 657,661(5th Cir.App.2002);U.S.V.Elores
,404.F.3d 320,324(5th Cir.(§th Cir 2005).id at 324,& N. ms nzalez V. Crosby,545 U.
Z!‘S.524-535~536,126 S.Ct.264l,s urpra(2005) U S.V Ruis.§£ 6 U,S.GZZ¢BZB(ZOOZ);U.S.v,*%
sgi.civii.

 

§‘Cottonc§$$ U.S.GZS,SHO(ZODZ).Thus,the Tsxas Suprema Court's gusbiccs should»'@

“- no doubt find that the Taxas Court of Criminal Appcals ayoears to have miscon¥`
'strued a statute,rule of law.aa it has so tar departed from the acceptsd.and us#“
ual course of gu@icial proceedings,and so far sanctioneo such a departure by ~
`the lower Court of hopeals,aa to call for an axcciae of this Texaa Supremo Cou-
rt's Justicec~pover of supervision.$ee Continental Co£fee Products Co.V.Cazarcz,
937 S.w.Zd 44@,44§,& n»Z(Tax.lSQG)."As this legal matter sub Judice is concern-'
ec,whsn a particcsac Statutc[Atx.l,§lO,& lE,Tex~Const.];Art lch?¢§B(b)(ctc),Tex.
C.C.P)craates a cause of action.the Court's Juriséiction oapands on that incich@'
ted statute;sub)ect-matter gurisdiction cannot be prosumeo and cannot be uaiveo¥
“Since lack of Jurisdiction makes a Jucgment void not lust voidable?ld;&s§co V.B
Forrsst,?§§ S,W.Zd 700¢703(Tex.2990)§smae);€f»&eebe V.j$alps,&§® F.Zd 774,776(~

Sth Cir.lSSl)(auyrema Court precedent cited therein).
C) This Texas Suprcma Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Taxas Court,of~

Criminal Appeals,pursuant to Articlo 5,§ SA of the Texaa Constitution.and»hrt.
é.lG(TCCP);Taxaa Government Coéc.§@i§nzzi(b);Texas Supreme Court's Rule 52.1,52£;
SS.B(b)(l),(Z .(3),& (c).57.3¢57.4,53.5,60.2(&)(o):(e),& (1)160.3,60.6,7241,72.~
Q:and 52.7(5),(1),(2),(b),and ic.at 52.3(e);§4.3 & 44.4&3){1),(2).All these gro~
vioicns apply when an hypellats Court dismisses an apyeal,with out correcting ~
the trial Court’s inaction or improper~illegal actions to adopt ann allow an ill-
egal third Parti'(s) intervention,and thus its{cr.€t.‘a] erroneous failure to Q@g
act as requested by this RELATOR ~ is a failure to yeriorm it's ministerial outy
ana tunction under thc facts and law of this Relator's habeas corpus case.Henoce,
the Court of Criminal Appeals/Resyondcnt(s) inactions prevented the oropcb ore~
sentation of this Rclator‘s case at bar,ano could not have §uly considered Rel»
ator's petition based upon his ground One error of lawiRegarding the trial Court
and it‘s presiding judge lacking subBeCt-matter gurisdiction.n none waivable is~
sus.nor right,nor can such Juriscictional defactibs forfietec,not even with con4
sent os~all,or any Party(s) of intesest...wrose yet,the trial Court’s habeas co-
rpus judge or intrudsr.re£uscd to accept Relator'a Compulsory Countpr~ciaim au-.
ainst those third Party interveners.Thus,&he trial Court failed to act in ruling_
on both habeas cor§us yetitione,and,cf the said counter-claimwInwhich,prior to-
the trial Court‘s judge or and its Clerk(s),dacision to torward some application
for a writ al habeas copua to the Texas Court of Criminal hoyeala,nslator tima&;
ly sent,and submitted his iG-yage npplication for a writ of mandamus to said Apj
pellate Court¢lnwhich an ina§&d ntcuncs stamp-mark ss AB€L hCOSTA,CLERK»Who_did

not sign such a remark or comment implying it received and presented to the[not-
this ?~]Court.Dated 7/13/15'& then subposely denied-without'anj written rcer~
on 8/5/15...And although this remark of stirowt a written order is implied)thsrc
it no indication the white card is in afact an GRDER OR JUDGMENT.This in fact is
an error of law.an§ evidently is defects in proceéuros applied or used by said -
4chooncient(a).ir`uth'ering this argument,hbel acosta,and or a single Jssticc does
¢ot havé power to dismiss either-writ of haboas corpua_or urituoé mandamus-Sei
` iigcivii." <"""' "

i" . ` ..\.~ 1

1

Rul§ l0.0Q(a§(l),(2)(T§x{R.App.P.)~ “in part‘r' Buh in § Civil cas§.a.§ipgl§#
justice §houl§ not ~[§ic} act on a paticion icc an extraordinary writr;in]or-

dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion tc br rehaarinc¥ld.
D) Thi§.white card di§uribution brings tha same results in a maverity of att§my“,

ted appeals by falsely imgri§on§d inmat§§§ k Your R§lator §ub Ju§lc¢.§ud §uch

§ result iSfa]perman@ntly g§§§§ §§x> unpr§c§d§nted aec of circumstances under a-
commcn»practice cf a QaLtern of dec i§ion"making found d upon § pref§r§nce §§ §p~
po§§d to reason and fact§~which is an arbi§r§ry act,'th§t can not be of §~Judi-
'ci§l daci§icn.Mu§hle§§ a §§cisicn en the merits cf any partic§§ar ca§§.ArbiCr§~`
ry prccedur§ acts are factor§ that run§ afoul of the L§gal Due Cour§§,and Proc~-
§s§ of law .3§@ alSG_Rule 15 l(§)..?A writ or process must bc §ig ned and be§r~
the Amp§ liat@’€ourt'§ sea “16...Thu§,§uch waive card is proc@s §§d §0 def§ctiv§ ~
that 10 Cl§rk chose to sign such void comments of remark*of deni§d ‘ithouu a wr~
itt§n <rGer..»Th§ R§§pond@nt(§) would nov even id§dtify the error cf law argued
by Relatcr,§c as to correct any Ccn§tlcutional violation cf she l§w by she trial
CouzL § :uog@.-.ln etn§rwords,Relator' § violation ot laws cined,@§t§n§:v§ly con~
tend wh the trial Comrt di@ n§t h§v§ jurieéictich over ake §ub¢§ct~m§tt§r.and'
PERSGN of lntc*$§§farLj cf int§r§§ t th§; is cl§iming the Prc§@cucor'(§) void in~
§ictment failed co charge an of£e§§§ or and fail§d cc cbarg§ H§l§tcr wfih'thQ~
§ommi§§ion of a crime Not just 3tate Courc #ppoinr.ed d§fe:§e Coun§el committe§
in e§mh of hie/?z§r fiduciary ducy, by failing tc challenge tha C§nvicLing c`omrt'§
Jucis sdiction ovcr the G§ienu§nc/ApycllanL and subj@cc~ matter M§ily ,o@cauuc the
alleged criminal indi cc.m§nt was §0 feta&ly defective.that it omitted mo§c,ii not
all the essential and Couetitu§nt el§ménc L§ of in§ ci?frn§e §ought co char§cj by -
the Pro§§cutinc team.Hamilton V. MQCOC£§r.§upra.]?Z F. 2d as 133»34, & Ns§$. 21¢22:
Fi§h§r V. 3c§te~337 3 W.Zd 49,36(?@§ Cr.Apg 1994). ana see Ylat V Nunnemhaker,$Ol

U.3.795,797 804,& n.3(19 9]).in yarc: v

;PRESUHPTION, this Court mu§t conaldcrrh§L Applicant' § §§§§§-l c.Laim§ reg
rding the Su fficiency cf the ludlcrmevL are not proc@dur§lll berra d;$t§te

;roceéure bars ar§ not immortal. but,the cy maj exyir§ because 05 l§Le act-
ions by the Stat§§§ Court:,'If‘ the last ELBRQ Court rc§ch§§ the n§rit§ #
'it remcves §ny bar tc federal Court revi@w that mignt~oth§rwi§§ hh§ve be~
en availabl§;§nd recogniz§d th§t'§cmet§§§§‘tn§ mem§b§r§ cf the Court i§§u#
ing an un§xulained Drder [REMARK] will not themselv§§ have §§§§§6 open its
rationale,$c that the basis oi cho§§]oecl§xor is not merely undiscols@d,~
but nonu~§§l§L§nce¢Id cites in Con§ V. Bell, 12 Ct.l;@§ §upz§(£@@§)(sim~

1liar c§§tenta.on); William V. Colliu§,BGR F.Supp.1530,15§3~35,l 36?44(W@D.T§x.1992)

n

j

Thu§,h§r§intoo¢the §§§pcnd§nt($) dim not §ctu§lly cch§id§r,n§r ruled <;ir':_R§-la{;c‘r--k
’§ [§pylicant'§] claim§“conc§rnin§ the sc§t§§ in§uf£i§i§ncy of the indictmenh,&~
ineff§crive §s§i§tanc§ of trial defense c§un§e}"'

This R§`lator regardless ci the triai~habe§§ cczpu§ Judg§,an§ cr its clerk' § in~

action n,§nd dc iaticn from the normal rulé§ of law,has conc§nded char his sub§@~
qu§nt al.l§g ed application involv§d ina inva.lidity 01 his convicc'lon. §§ an n§li§n~
ying the trial Court‘ § Jurisdiction.over the cause#?&§§§?.$c arL.ll.07 et §§q i§
available,§ut R§lator can only com§ cl the habeas court Judy§ or its Cl§r 2' to fiv.
l§ R§lator'§ accual petition for a writ of nanea§ corpu§,and then writ of »~~ --M

.§ Civsl

 

 

‘1

mandamué against said trial Court'a Clerk(s) or ané habeas Judgo grooidibg over
this casé anb judico,and thereforo,tho aosistance 06 this Suprene Court of -
Texes Suporviéory power can remedy the §§H§@n¥£r§‘(o) error of law,as~an arron-1
eous inaction and refueual to act and porform his/h@r/their ministerial function"
to correct the trial Court's oNHor~@§*law,and intentional failures to act E§ont-
Rolator'o factual and legal basis for his error of law one,as his ground one er-
ror Of law .In dismissing Relator'o writ of habeas Corpus potitio,an§ a timely -

'writ of mandamus,§ho Roapondont(s) ha$ not followed the cammonds of the rule of~

law.Jurisdictional isomea,€onotitutional rights & law violations or cho Conotitu~
tionality of a Statute,aa well as Brady Lau violations in in the category of non-
waivable iosuos and claims of rights being violacod,and cannot bo applied to the
abun@ of the writ act.o.g.,Keeter V.Stace,lOS S.W.Bé 137,142-143,&'U.i?(iex.§ppl_
§§§9 2003),citing Marin V.State.BBl S.W.Zd 275,279~80(Tox Cr.App.iQ?B).Thus¢the
Reo@onéent(o) overlooking thé trial Court‘s arbitrary acts or usurpation of power
.ano novo not iound that there are no set of facts which can or canoot prove kel*
ator’s allegations/acousat$ons in his potitio for either the writ of habeas cor-
pu,nor the writ of mandamua~€omylaint(o)»But Rolator's accuaations,basod on hi§j,
trial Court's oxhibitation»derivotively from said trial Court’s rocoro,and,uso&&
as his oxhibitation to sugyorc vacature of his conviction($)“ln‘fact,iho Roapond;?
enc(s) hao not even impliod or oxprossod thoy[justiooo] have adopted some propo-
vsod findings or facts and concluoiona of law by the trial Court's habeas Dudgo or
hits Clork(s),ao such facts involve issues challenging cho trail Court's gorioéin»
éiction.Moreovor,Re$pondent(s) has not even implioé it hao oonotruod one or the -
othor'&arty‘($) facts most favorable to either one ? Sinc@ th@ fatally defective
procoese@ white oard evan omitted what or whose issue$ were neard,énd no grounds~
of any kin§ have been provided for diomiaeal of Your Relator's Cléim(s)..“€laims
thai aot forth in his memorandum of law,and contentions in said momorandum of w
law have been corroborated with rocord$ from the trial Court,used no Rolacor's_§§:
hibitation inaugport for his simylified ploaéing,oo as po carry hio'own bur@on ro-
l&ting to his facts*-~all of which claims have cired authority groviding a viable
legal ground[or theory] for ooeking relief on Thooe/his Ploaéed statements and~.
accusations.Rospondont{s) inaction_or ito recalcican; Clerk(a)(hbol Acosta,ec all
who refuoeo to filodond grooooo Rolator's actual potltion,hae unjustiiiably diom~
.iseeé Rolator’s petition{$)_inspit@ that dismisal doeo not conform to groceoural~
~ commands for writ of hahhon corpuo or and writ of mandamuo,&nd for these Etat@§ ~
ru£oono;Roletor's r@qnost for mandamu& r@liof should be growtw§i&gain@t R@$POWG@B*
nz(é)...Whom Has infered ot implied that Tex.Code Crim.Proc.Art.ll.U?,§{dia)~(c)~
may bo its baaia,éven though than implioment is a mino§@lication of tho cooroct¥;
Statute's suboecciona...Wrose yot,Ro$pondont(a) does not identify the roc:o-rda§~d
that Relacor has preeonced,as submittwd exhibitetio:;along with ita rocordo»thatj
contain cho information being complaint of and including but not limitedt@£¢tho~
j¥§third Party‘(n) ILLEGAL and unlawful motion proction submitted by them/oh@/~

»}j' - . S.Civil- , n

'he.and thus,commit abus o of the[ir] judicial power.$ee also In re Taylor,ZB-

_ion for ll.@?*Writ of habea$ rpto`has{boen…r@c=ivod and prc esohted to the Cou-

`rt..but hot file-d I,ncr oocket ed open thc Court of Ciiminal Apycals docket for
4doc pane cl; and plainly there upon the trial rccoro its clear that hohowmcro §~

mserved any logal process of Servico,and thc eby,no“possiblé anewor could have~
j 1

 

l

  

 

248(Te :<. App.~[lOth Dist. ], Waco 4000)["Conditionaiij granting ma

 

994 S.W.Zd §)
ndamus where inmate §resehted Sufficient proof§ that the district juoge failed~
to consider and rule upon his motions,and pleadings,among other favorablo:find~
1133"1d`ln re Martinez-Ramirez,994 S. W. 2d 682 683(Tex.hpo.~3an Amtonio [Ath Diot

st. ], 19 98)orig pro ) this Said Court found an abuoo of discretion ih failinggto~

_Honoider and rule on a substantative motion,in aédition to,without Relator even‘

requesting at any oxtent,requiring the trial Court to conoider schcduling a he~
aring on the merits of Relator's motion[Applicant's pleading for stricking Jos-

hua Vincent'and Andrew J.Smith illegal brief presented}as Siwno£ by them on or~

-obout 6/17/15],or in the altornative,Rolator'S presenco,as requiroé by thc laws

of habeas corpus,effording Relator his own defense,with his on~hand-roaéy:oxhib-

its to person&lly show how and why those indictment'o accusations are void ab ~

~initio@Cose law and Statutory law cited in RELATOR"S original writ of habeas ~

- corpus potition'$ memoranoum of law.attacheo to 'his application“H@wever,Rospon-

doht’(c) erroneous failure or refusual to act as reouest&d~by Your Relator i$ a~

'ministerial function that nog;§@t@@ its rolé in performing o juéici&l fUHCCiCH

ao'reouirod by ltv w undo r the facto of this Caso Suh judice,and ther@forolpropab-

 

ly caused the rendition of oh improper decisioh,or and §r@voh»i»othio,§élator- :
from properly and accurately presenting his caus a of action to that S&mr Aoycl~
late Court as if filed under citationi WR- 53,392- 04 & OS/T ir Ct. #76555/ Thus,the-
R@~oonoent( ) has arbitrarily acted in ouppressing Relator 5 memorandum ot law j
amc not ruling on his o- §position to the Phantom SEAT E'S answer to Agplicaht'j&%¥
Writ of Habeas Corpus potition.ThiS said defective proce§s of Bervicc is ioop~
itc that thc law governing Courts£@oncerning,and otherwise ruling upon;any sort
of logal application,that includos mtiono and writs that in effoct Sock judic~
ial action and rciief, has long been ca tabllohe as a ministcrial duty imposed -

coon a Court [judge ] of law.homak V,Berry,l§@ Tox.44(1956),in aprt:
"Mandamus iS designeo to command a Judge,among other aspects~
- to rule upon a §roperly filed motion within a reasonablo timo?lo.
Arguing futther and in the alternative,if Art.ll.QV,§ 4(&)-(¢)(?€€?),wcro to “

apply,it'o construction would not comport with the Ké§htor’5 Constitutionol Ri'

 

 

gh of access to the Courts§and a Statutory right to 'file‘ his hao'eas corpus -

 

Application¢alohg with it‘S separate memorandum of law,ano ito c:;hib 5 ts there~
`of too,pursuant to ARTICLE 12 of the Texas Constitution,and 11.07,§ 3(h)(TCCP).

Id.at D@loan'V.District Clork,Lynn County,187 S.W»3d §§3/474~75(Tex.€r.hpp.209"
U@)iln Relator'o case at bar,tho ghost Clork'o white card implioo the applicat~

ohio application and it' s memorandum of law to tin en be prc$ehteo to a thcoe ju

us Reopondents were never Served the Summons and complaint($),ano thus¢never

 

,7
1 d

 

been filed eith@r. 399-also §M{h V.Avilla,§§l S.W.Zd 495,SOO(Tex.AppidHouston#:;
{3 r Diat ], 19 99.no pat.).Fu§§hermereov@w/a construction-of Art~ll.U?,§ é-ylu-

ces the ConstiLuticnal §u¢ra¢ eesbboyn upda£ the lst§§ 14th Amendmnces Lo U.b

Ccnst & Ar I.§§ 13_& l?;T M.Coégt.)within'th@j§urview of due p$oceas of law &~
th@ E%ual prot@ction of Lhe law,and is ghus,prob QH&Q.W because Saéd abuse o£»

the writ &ct ia'a atatutory &u§hority,and subgects such a Consti&u§ional r$§ht ~
~ ’ W` “§ . ' '78 n-lY*

or ama grovisio n to s:‘t utory dutnorlt~‘v@@ CO°k V~b Lat@'592 9 W 4/1'4 ‘

lB(l’@ @x.Cr.Apy 1995) Then au uch denial of acce$s to the Courts has caused a oepri~

vat icn ci Relator‘ s Con$cit ufional ri,htu csx {Bic} availing_him$@lf to the Court

y

of Criminal Appwals of T@ as.Which includ@s Scat@~§t&§utory right$ of alt@rnac"

iva options of access to that saié Appellat@ Court,as well as the trial CQurL tot

a&wresz Rel ator's constitutional violation oi ri<,hta com§lointa,anc cytions §o»

a¢a§ed'anc interyreted ptec@dent resolv u.g in judicial degree-

\ 13
::

with guélc

wa

1
racics:el& .3

77
m

* §

l¥"
Ru TCL) 01 th@ I:ex&s Rules of Judicial Aoni niatra ticn§ dud$on ~
98 cl `tcd at Nartinc? ~Ramirez-994 S.W.Zd at 05 53 EQ; in :hdc th@~

V..p£‘s §m(%£(u»»¢l
“&§§ablishm@nts z lnhvtkg sould nOL be denieo access to the Cour‘s as a zeauit
.of thqiy;[His] status as &n l'nmateYid;C£J§§ 14,008 § ld,DlZ.Tean Civil Prac§~

ice & Remodi@: Cc §§§Vernon‘@ 2003).’Each cf chase forms 01 law have :eng neen~

seth e3tld.~.-And this SUpremeL Court has h@id: "If an &ct {B ll] is Un onaLitut~
ional,it is no law at all?@ g.,Miller V. Davis,l§© S~W.ZG 9 135 295,13@ A.~
_L. R l!T('FeK 942) `In fact,this up£me Court of Texas,na@ fut he h@ld then - ata~

arm

a
§m§w cannot ov@rrid€ §h@ Te§as tons titution" Cramer J.bn@pgero 175 S.W.ZQ Hé 140
Tei.27i{’% 1941) Mi in Coldenizhie Supzeme Couxt said tha§ esa utt§zljvoid act
[Bi]l] can have no et feet to accomplish anythinb.€olden V.Alexa dndér,l?l S.W.Zd »
325.141 Tex.]34(Tex.1943).

This said uncon$titutional “oceduré ior_@ddr@ssinj Civil and Ccn~tmtur\ena1 vio~

 

'c'r’

lation$ ci 1.§3“§ 3 ana law 111 §h@ leaat of &rt 13.07, § 4(@)~(0)(?€ CP)'$ proolems.

Since the mes@oncenc(s) has hale itself to @xgress that "vaoid law affotd$ no -

basi$ for criminal yro$ecution¥e. 33 Par§e Mals;aé,i§£ S»W.Za 479,147 Tex*Crlm.

’ l

L¢,

453{Tex.Cr.Apy.1944);Tnu$,the "meanihg of tha words cf a Con&titu§ion at the §im@
thwy werw pl mead them;@ n cannot be &itorca or @m¢novu b an L wi¢la cive buoy or ~
LQ5 § tion at a subeevuent t\m@.ww&"f* §§ V StaLe,G'/ T@x Crin. 615 150 Sw;.Qd 162

Cr.Ay;.lGlZ);Ex Patte Giles.SOZ 3 W 2d 774(Tex (‘r.App lQ?B).”AHY~erviuicn of a~
Ccnstltuticn is aelf~execut.ing to the extent that anything done ip-vlciacicn di ~

it is Void"Hemphill V watson,€ 0 Téx b?$(Tcx.>&§@). § . § 1
.AS we have Snown in Lhu p:evious L@v¢e,Mon§@omery Amusement Co»auyru,lB$ Fwd.B$Sv

355’1905) Aff' 140 F.QSB,&`HBDC V.State 3 W 233,2M ,22 T@x Ayp.(l&&€i."aa pwr~

.enactinq Cl&us;$ and tneir precis@ wcrding as p- cast Mocd byaa St&te C@n$ti1@_1ti0n~

ace mandatory ana not GLreLLor~"ID Cf. Alford § City of Dallas,? h,B S.W ZcS 312 K}B~

.& §§ ante llf.n.7 in pa.§£ "No statute or lax.* pas sed say lmyglr[rzghtsjtran i§§ of

Title ns impa@@lcignns under concrect;$;and 38 in this case at bar,“the Apgellant»
r Appiic an s uleading 3 must shaw that the mya1rmentl1r§3c lent indictmentj~

S.Civ il~

   
     

~C§ntracc;as cir cumotances  d§ocr1oed abo¢e~are in exietanc§.said uncosci
cutional provis sional¢violated Relator State of Texas and Fed§ral Cohs€it§tio~'
“`nal righ t§;and is justificati§n

   
 

§ or [L}his Cau§e of action to §§ forward Espe»
cially aince it involves the jgr1od1ct1on of the trial Court,and it‘ s trial Ju~
Qge committing arbitrary acts to by pa§s the Grand Jury panel oy§t@m,ac requi~

red by law Thus,using Lhe Judiciary authority to sua aponte a Billa of Attaind§

§t.in violation of Articl§ I § 16 of cho Texas Constitution"ld.
\ '.' ,\ II- A~
Thc Supremc Court of Texas direction if error of law iv remediable i.e.,Rulo 61.
4(T§1.R. App P ). id at 61 4(3)(l) (2) & (b) This Supremé Court can direct the ~
‘VRasyondont(s) to correct its error cf law in aepriving Relator his Constitution»
;el. rights of access to the COURTW or it' 2 Courthous.and correct such dani§l of“
"his Conctitutional rights Which are enforceable under th@ United Stat@s Cohsti&/
”j tution,as it providee: "The Privil§ge of the Wric of habea§ Corpus shall not be'
§§ suapcm§od,unleos when in Caaes of Rebellion¢or Invasion of the Public SaEQty

'may roqu1r§§§’"ld et Art,l § 9 Clause 2; inaccord with Art ll 04 ll. 05,11 23 ll~
31 ll 32 ll 36 & ll GO(TCCP): Art ll 0723(§); Art l § l2(Téx Const ) And See also

Wr1ght V West,$ U 8 375¢&85*96(1992)(c1tat1on in or1g1nal) Preisér V. Rodrig~
uez.éll U 5 474 485- 86(£97§)(hebeao corpus appropriate method to challéhgcd unl-
j§wfull Conv1ct1on,ecc) Hence.R§§pond§nt(s) errpneous failur§ to file Relacor' s

  
 
  

n§in contesting his (the] legality or illegality cf his Gétention,not me-

Wls‘qu1lt or innocence,1u the Rc§pondent (a) acts of failure to perfcr§ §

1t s légal duty,and owes such a legal duty to §elator,rather than w1llfully br~

oaching it s duty and that breach is th§ proximately the cause of violatiug th-

15 is Relator’ s Constitucional rights to petition the Govcrnmcnt of redress of his

l cjr1evances comp§d1nt of herein above Th@refore.mandamus may be qrant§d becaus§~
the act sought to be ccmp@lled.is puroly a ministerial act and as the Rcapono-'
§nt(s) 15 the last 5tate resort of addressin§ Relator*a unlawful incarcération,\
there is no other a&quate remedy avaiable at law Additionally,Relacoz does ha§w`
§ clear right to the relief he seék§~ma1nly bécau§e the merits of Relator‘ § ca$e
.ar§ beyond_diepute,inpprevailin@but only if the trial Court's Cl@rk or and iLc

z habeas judge,fil@§ all Relacor’s actual a§plication for writ of habeas co§§ue,*

n `it§ memorandum of law,and its atfachod exhibitaticn therewith said documentation
Inwhich the trial Court’ s clerk héa not been Grdered to forwaré Such necessaryv_
said documentation co the Res §ondent(s) and it' o A§pellate forum,i.@.,hrc.ll.o?.

§ 3(5)(chP).in pacc:‘ -
§When the Appli oation is received by that [ttial]
Court,a Writ of habeas corpus.returnaole to the Court
of Criminal Appeals,$hall issue by operation of law. The
Clérk of that Court Shall make appropriate notations th-
. Treof,a§sign to the case a file number(ancillarg to that~;

\*: o§ the conviction being challengod),and forward a copy of the appliuation by jo
certifiécd mail,retirned recei §§ roqueateo,or by personal services but to thé
hperson »Custooian - having thé Prisoner/Party under lillogal] restrainc;in ~»r§

ls/hec custody,as it ia charge 96 with auch authority,and it is to exhibit cuba

     

9.'civi‘l.“ x

 
 
  
  

 

” Original.if demancad; aa there ia no lawful righ§ in the parson[€uatoélan]~ 4
exercising tha powor or wh§ra§ though tha power in fact cxiats,it ia '§xarcis§
sad in a manner or degree not §anctionod by law; but that §ha peraon~@ustodian
on whom the Writ ia served shall bring before tha Judge tha parson[Relator]-
4in his/her Custody§§1 under its restraint and thus,tha lagal Cu3t9 iandba dir~
ectad.@e. said Custodian,cemman§ing it tp produce such parson,at a time amd ~
place named in the Writ,and show why [?] he is held uné&wfully in it' a Cuatody;
and rastraint"id at Art ll Ol ll 92 11.93 ll 27.*11 31 ll 323 and ll i§¢l) (2)-4

 

(§},QQ) §§§&P- id at ll 14(2)~" Whan thc PARTY ia confind ana ra$traint of his “
liberty,by viture of any writ, 0rdar.ot process or §§dar color ox: aithar.a copy~
Shall be annexed to tha petition[R@lator' a memorandum ot laa]or it shall be st~
ated that a copy cannot be obtainad¥ld..."ia wordaé-aa a pleading§§§§uir§mant~'
and dcaa not contain words of prohibition such aa language‘found in section 451
of Article ll.O?Ye-g;,Bx Parte Golden,QSl S W. 2d 859.at .862(Tox. Cr App 1999)
To furxher omphaaiza these fatally dafectig§§yroceoures under the trail Court' a
,§§baaa corpus proca§dinga,thara ia no Order for tha preparation of tha trial -~

§-Court' a records/transcription of all partianmt legal paper documantation in ca-

 
  

uae#?$§$§?,and to have said transcripts transmitted to tha Raapondeht' (a) App~w
allata Court tribunal,pursuaht to Art ll 07 § 3(b) & (c) or (d)~for datarmin-

§ ing whether there were controverted.provioualy unresolved facto material to th§»
L§gality or illegality of'thi[ ]' oonfinwmant;’for the [void]oiienaa of murder-`

‘reaultihg from the Ivoid] conviction that is the basic of this instant writ of~
mandamua.-and the pravoua writ of habeas corpua~~~but§aa tha§ trial Court r§co 1
ord raflecta,a\€lé§§@&a§&;?§l&g@§c¢ctot knows,thero ia nornotice of any trail~ §
Court'a[h§boas 3u699' s]daciaiona that theré ware or wore no iaauea of controv~
varta<i facta,baforc such aaa umad finding, if any’,matarial am otherwiae prova»
that the presumytion of validity of the conviction.ia auf£ic&ant.applicd to the
allegao 1nd1ctmcnt,arreat warrant ana supporting Affidavit(a),’it any;‘:
tually appear regular §§ their fac§§l appaaranoas. Baca§aa Raapondant(a) own par~

 

lSonal Otficial busines a white card.aa a not1oa of diamiaaa'l.or and receivamcnt

§§ erroneouly fails to express or state the §§at transcripts ware ORDERED to ha 1n~
cludaG-aa carti£ied-and-authontic copies of tha documents produced on appeal ?-`
by that Trial Court’a Clcrk€a) and aaan,and rmlcd on by Raapondant(a) Thua the 7
Raspondant'a Clerk(a) had a Guty and obligation[if aa itc burden !] to includa-’
any or all_partinant papers material to Ralator‘a unléw§ull confinement.$uch aa
lth@ alleged indictmant inéiaputo,cause$?@$§$?,-which ia factually inaufficiant~»
an§ void aa a matter of law,to support the illegal §rra§t or warrantless 4arnert¢
and said affidavit's insuff iciancy,can not possibly up hold Ralator’ a convict~

ion Sao Rula 35 S(a) thur (h)(Tax.R Apy. P): Contanta:
Unlaaa the part.ias designate tha filing in the agpallaca
Record by ag1eemcnt under R§LEI _¢ ,th@_record must incl-
" nda cpoies of the iollowing(citationa`omlttad) lbid»
`.Alao aaa the rule that tha Reaponoc nt(a ) failed to appréhond §han Ord
Clark(a) to forward the essential material evidencé to the Appellato Co

`f3§ 3(a)(l), (2) a (b)(l) (2) (3) & (*c)- _Relator' o octw&ion s concluded wi_

aquaat,' with an attachad- roaoy~maoa»yro@oaao 9rdcr¢§@§ Ln@ FHM»§ ,ourt'§ ~§
‘ lO C1vil.

 

   
  
 

. _ \'

  

   
  

P65t5§min5tion of the oéiginal docum45nt5 fileé Gith itVs Conrt' 5 recozd51of- d
'it' 5 Clerk' 5 office for insyeetion by the R55pon645nt' (5) Court;[& i4t' 5 ust155~,
44 -5]or 55nt to that Respon&@nt' (5) COurt 1n 1155 of copi55.~but the trial §ourt~i
:.;must make an ORDER for the preparation.5afe k5eping.transportation.and 55tuzn56e
.of tno5 original documents....Tne ORDER mu5t list the original 5ooum5nt5 and~
bri5fly o@acribeéthem"!dad....However,the white card merely imply§,that an apyl~
ication for 6525? Writ of  hab@as oorpu_ bae b55n réceived and presénted to15om5~

4§ourt...' not,that what5v5r w551 presented 555. to this[Tex.Ct Cr.APPWQOurt,witn~
§§2516&*5in555555555¢5152551555151555§53,55555 535555555§6555 counter~claim.£i~
led by the Applicant¢Eddie D. Baker(or ni5 r5tain56 lawyer.és CUSTODIBN 514 r5c-
ord )'5 Anower or respon55(55 R55pondent on habea5 procteo1n355¢and all B§ker' 5

 

      

1'&xnibit5 Submitted,if any,5nd f1lod,55 actcned thereo£to: the orig1n51 indictme-

-5nt(5 ) or and any reindictment,Juogment,Sentence(S),dnd oockét 5n55t5,otc..ld ~
at R 36 5(£)(TRAP); R 26 l(a) (3) & (4), & (b); 31. l &22: R 33 i- "in that th55 Rela~

ton 5 0555 at barihie compla1int was maée to the trail Co5rt by timely oh 5ction'
to th5 third Pérty' 5 intervention,and complaint'5 4 glounég clearly indicat5 thét
1°for gmpmp§. ruling,as with certainespeci£icat1on th5t was moré thén sufficient~v

   

l1_to méke the trlalhab5555judg5 aware of the[hialcomplaint wh5r5in this Relator441
l"1..P_5t1tion speczf1cally stated it' 5 gro_unda1for relief.aé such facts werc appar-1

  
  
 
  
    

lent Erom t4h15 Rw!ator' 5 writ~petitaon 5 contents"id; R 37 2~:
in part: vPON RECEIVING THE APPELLAWE'S Appeal,an§ re'¢eivi

~- Court' 5 record the appellate olérk must oetetmine “

Clerk' 5 & Réportér s recpods complies with the 555

4 and that of the Texas Court of Criminal Ayyvals Oté

-oy 1 .F'rétion of the record--~'if so,the Clerk 5555§5n65555 ` 1
`_tné 6ate of Ee€eipt,file it.and notify the Partiea of tne filings and?the date"

7H5nce,tn5 trial Court' 5 record shpélo reflect tn5551w55 no Order to the trial-
.1Court'5 Clerk(5) to 55nd the Re5pondent( ) the transcripts 5nd15t5t5m5nt of fa~
cbs to confer the juri5diction of the APPELLATE Court Héndian' ¥eBeaoaes¢En&n¢»
Colley Gin Co,éBO S. W 26 372.5upr5(55x.1968»c£ gordon v. 39;3,9@3 3_ w 3d 554,
665(T5x Cr 559 1994) Tnu5,the trial Court'5 Clerk was suppoaed to sent Relotot-
54 Copy of an Ord5r to prepare 555r5n5cr1ption of their record incnief ana 85 iat»
or ét his place of confinement and to the habeas Qegponéent(s) £01 th5 State of
T5x55 contracting firm. Which 15 TDCJ'$ prioon Un1t callao the Mark Wayno Nicnaél
ané the Senior warden therefrom his placé of bu5in555 Tnat 15 5 Conétitutional-
iettor 06 law in its self Mainly,b5cause the tria]. Court' 5 habeas corpu5 proceeda1
ings weré not certified by that trail Court and filed by it' 5 Cl5rk 551 1or to 6/~;
27/2015~ or before the applicatloh,o£ nabe 555 corpms b5c5m5 r5turn5bl5 to th5 T5x+'

55 Court of Criminal Appeal¢/Respond cnt' (5) 4
Respondent‘(e ) proceoures for either tn5

AHLKHFJ writs implemtntation of .

Appe]ldte'a foam Hence because of

. all the 55055 mantionéd d5fect5 in the

Wm&t of mandamus or and Writ of habeas corpus)
law could be i5sueo 55 an opperation of law¢as provided unéer Rule 72.1 322¢&~_5

the only Mntion to force the trial Court' 5 clerk to forward their tran5criyt5 134
1'*`"1.\:!115 c555 556 Judice.was,as 15 in these groceedlngola 5r1t of mandamus to ci;rect~
1 ll Civil. ` 4' ‘134jwfzv. 4 '

       

.,.‘,
"""~ 1`$..\

§§te action or inactione,ee intentional failures to perform its minieter&el 69~`

  

 

.W;'§iee 'Iherefore.the weaéemuv was presented to the RespondenL cfL) Court 01 Apxe
'ele fir$t 9rior to 7/13/2015(un6er caee333 69 …_04 WR),and unof£1cially den1e&@99
by Abel Acosta' s name be1ng ueed on a wh1te card but denied leave to FILE the ~j
§ original application for a writ of mandamus So  8266 men6amue was never file6~tn
511that Reepondent' (e))Appellate Court,an6 never rule6 on for a due coneiderationr~
and a 6ecision thereafter,and thue¢Lhie cells for thi@ 6upreme Court’ s eupervis~
ory power to vacate the Reepondeht' (e) Or6er or 6e¢1319n of dimieeel an6 reinst»
z ate Relator' e cause of action,un6er further proceedings,in the interest of just-
_¢ice,for fommul defects,an6 irregualert;ie e,and not ellew1nr Reletor a reasonable
time to co®rez or and amend his formal pleadings for went of jurisdietion- -w£th~'
-;in hie.aleication ahd memorandum QY law' s 1nforuzation,'11 anything we$ actually
§_; in defective manner...Justice Howmes»cnce eé&o,"We are not speaking of mer$ dis-
' :`order,or mere irregularities in procedure,but of a Caee where the procemees off?

3uetice are actually eubverted"Frank V.Nangum¢ZB? U.S.BO§, 346- 47(1915)
The Truth of Relator’S legal subject matter in his want of actions are to reco-4-

639 zor nie righte,under federal and Texee Stete lawe,be1n1 vielate6.ée unco et~T
Fitutional incarce33tlon will not accure corrective re3e6iel proceedinge,untlll"

  

Reletor prevaile in hi$ requested mandemue reiiel action Brown V. Edwardh,?£l F _
:26 1442, l448(5th Cir l984)z Cf Ex Perte Clear,573 S. W 26 224,eu9ra(Tex.Cr.A99.19-'
78)(citetion omitted)..Thue, the Texes Supreme Court e _3ue't1ces can hold that 4 `
LW'Relator has no other adequate remedy.Reletor can not appeal the trial Coprt' e ~
void 3u693ent order rendered by that trial Courc”e`ecting convicting 3udge;an6-

there 33 no known othe1 3egal mechanism ehort of mandamua by which RELATOR may
ehalleng§ Respondent' (e) deciaion or implied order to 613153 his writ of habeae~
cor9us or amd mandamue,~without any written Ocders or and explanatione...?hat ~
are decisions contrary to,an6 involve~d an unceaeoneble a9911cetion or,clearly»
established Supreme Court¢of the Un1te6¢SLetee,Texes SupLeme Court 'fexee Court-
of Criminel Ap@§aie,and Fifth Circiut 9recedent.un6 thus ,conclueioné opposite to
 that reached by said superior Courte rulinge en the lew,es well as decisions on-
e case differently than said 399erior Co urts that have had a set of materially-
in6ie tinquiehable facte.,and by such Brbitrary actione,Relator hae suffered an*
' actual or/end threatened in3ury under such procedure bar,that restricks h66 cl»
G`er right to have the Respondent(e) vacate its implieé or 6ecivisive order.¢c .St-
aba ex rel.Hill V.Pirle,@&? S W 26 921 926 ZV(TeK.Cr A99.1994) Hence,there is -
well pleaded authority directly on 9oint,as it a9pears without a 66ubt.en6 each

 
 
 
 
  

 

  

zings,cleerly falls under~

d

the category of structural error of lawe,and it eo infecLed the entire appeals

_9roce6ural defects in either habeas or mandamus proce§

zproceeees that 13 should not be overlookeé while the Su9reme Céurt' s justices-
_are execieing its gurie6iction over Reletor’ s case sub judice.So manéamue ie ep-
9r09riete remedy DeLeon,supre,lB7 8 w 36 at 474 75,& n l 2 4- 5. ,
6Nherefore Premiees Coneidered,thie Releter 9raye1hat thie Hupzeme Counh e'j

_'I¢ v t 9 :_ _

1,3 94_ l 12. Civil

     

=, W/",;z> ,, , . ' " ' , ' ' » ‘ ' “""’f;:§§,;§{;‘¢»\,-

q \` " ~~',..

grant {t]his Application énéfiosue a Writ of Mandamus oirecting.kbel`hcostar

   
    

ona or whicn.evor or whoever was,ao is, the Rooponéent~recalcitrant~Clerk(oY»

 

'or the Juoi®@€€o) who refuses to file and réooro Relator's §roperly~oxecuted-i
documents/paper sent to its;Appéllate Court or if not sont,said Rospondont(o)_
`-refused to file his mandamus application,but that instructions would include an
Ordor for issuing an Order for filing énd setting thone present matters for é~
#submission and an evidentiary hearing,i£ neodod,to afford Rolator a full and *'

m;pomplete nearing'upon these factual and legal dispute,which,if resolved in his
vfavor.would entitle him to relie£,§ursnunt to Rolator‘o Claims of Conotitution»
jnl`errors of law,by trial and Respondont@o)lindiviouals in this Caae;but that-
~that Respondent(s) set aeide the implied or decisive order rendered supportly-
on August §§uZOlS,and this said notice was roceivod$§&§@@§g®@§§ZOl§(both habee~'
&?mandamua writs bear;éame date)-in canon 765557~Tr.€t¢& & WE»53.692~64405,and»
Roqu§ot that Reopondent(s) or ita Clerk($)send the_reoord to this SupremS Court
__pu¢§ua@g”£ocnule 20.1(§),& 20.2 en seq(rnap>.As this Relacor is[falsel inpris¢~
' nodj§£o?présently incércerated,and to poor to pay the Court’s feeo/costs tot ~.
lony or oll the original transcripts/récords of tne trial Court,and that of the
"RESPONDENT'(o)-rocords.But the indictment(s),Judgment(s),sontenco(s),Qountor~
olaims,énnibité by Relator and some unknown Roepondent’($) are available to th~
is Supreme Court through both trial and Appollate Courts files of their Clerks,
Rule.54,2(a) to (b)(TRAP):BQ.Q(a) & (o) aro invoked for briefing to be Conotr-
god Liborally,as required in Hains V.Kerner,92 S.Ct.SQALSHHl),id»at 404 U@@.BIQ~
SZD.Méinly because-Relator and his legal inmate aesistant ore not trained lawy~
oro in the law,and should be entitled to loss otringontbstandards than formal¥
`pleadings drafted by a traind lawyer?lé; A declaratory judgment ttnat this cau#:
se of action ia of Such importance to tho jurisprudence of this State of Toxas~
that mandamus appeal shoulé bn allowod:incorporate AppealeO Reason.uago$ 20 to~
24¢cited in Texas Monthy,July ZOlS~Article,by Mini Swartz}~affirming Seventfféi¥

   

root death penalty appealseof inmates casnS.All hoard botwoen 2009 & 2013-b
that Article's point is this Supremo Court can make things Right¥§§§oorrectin§);
the Reopondont'(o) Gefective and unconstitutional proceéureo and make sure ghati
x .the judiciary system doosn't go awary ané excute an innooent Pernon§&§»reforénoé
IVP$& 5th Cir.Ct.App.[fed],case#OG-lZBO;OB-ZOSlV-regarding related issues novor ad~
, dreosod for lack of a competent lawyer or paralmgal,butzoppeal had merit before

  

dismissed for failure to prosecuto;dismios the trial cuaoo§?o§$§?ao void in»all
chorged offense alloged.And grant any oth¢r relief this Court doomg“§§§$§@w&oot~
@no-ends of justice.£x Parté`¥oung.él@ S.W.Bd 824,826(Tex.€r.A§p.l967).'

` so movod.and prayed for this Writ of mand@mus to be grante@. »'
4 _ .Bnpgooifully eubmitteé, 31”1%5
TDCJ§OOB3BlOO,being presently unlawfully incarcerated,in the mark Wayne Michael
Unit,at 2264 F.M,@®&§¢Tennessee Colony Texaa,?$$&€.do hereby`éeclare and certify
under penalty of.porjury»that I have read these foregionngmn%§@%@ information,&
lvor£§y-that these stated matter are true,a¢ourate,corroo ,on my'ooli@f,and l s
`unnvo provided the Respondent(s) a copy of the samo.pursuant to Tox,Civ.Pract,
-~'a R@m.coa@,§§ 132.001-132.003, . ' -‘

l 3

ia.civil.

