Chase Carmen Hunter v. Texas Department of Insurance and David Mattax, in His Official Capacity as Commissioner of Insurance

Summarize Case

Related Cases

ACCEPTED 03-14-00737-CV 3790936 THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/15/2015 6:33:26 PM JEFFREY D. KYLE CLERK No. 03-14-00737-cv FILED IN 3rd COURT OF APPEALS _____________________________________ AUSTIN, TEXAS 1/16/2015 12:23:00 PM IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALSJEFFREY D. KYLE Clerk AUSTIN, TEXAS _____________________________________ CHASE CARMEN HUNTER v. ELEANOR KITZMAN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, JULIA RATHGEBER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE APPELLANT’S BRIEF WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT From Cause D-1-GN-13001957 In The 250th District Travis County, Texas, The Honorable John K. Dietz Presiding Chase Carmen Hunter, pro se 340 S. Lemon Ave. #9039 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: 707-706-3647 Facsimile: 703-997-5999 Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com -1- IDENTITY OF PARTIES Appellant: Chase Carmen Hunter Appellees: ELEANOR KITZMAN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, JOHN/JANE DOE IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS INTERIM COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, OR AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE Counsel For Appellant: Chase Carmen Hunter, pro se 340 S. Lemon Ave #9039 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: 707-706-3647 Facsimile: 703-997-5999 -2- TABLE OF CONTENTS CERTIFICATION.........................................5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE...............................5-7 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION...........................7-9 STATEMENT ON ORAL ARGUMENT............................9 ISSUES PRESENTED...................................9-10 STATEMENT OF FACTS...................................11 SUMMARY............................................11 DETAILS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY..................11-12 ARGUMENT..........................................12-14 PRAYER............................................14-15 CERTIFICATIONS....................................16-17 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES FEDERAL CASES Connally V. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926).........................13 Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972).........................14 STATE CASES In re Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454-544...............12 In re Nubine, -3- No. 13-08-507-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6534......12 STATE STATUTES AND RULES Gov’t Code 2001.054(c) et seq.........................6 Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (“TRCP”) 145 (a)................................9-14,16 TRCP 145 (d)......................................13,14 TRCP 165a(3)..............................9,10,12,13,14 CONSTITUTIONS Due Process Clause...............................passim -4- CERTIFICATION. I, Chase Carmen Hunter, state under penalty of perjury that the following facts and argument are true and correct. January 15, 2015 STATEMENT OF THE CASE. 1.Judge John K. Dietz (“Judge Dietz”) is the presiding judge of the 250th District in Travis County District Court. His physical address is 1000 Guadalupe St. Austin, TX 78701. 2.Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza (“Clerk”) is the Clerk of the District Court in Travis County, Texas. Her physical address is 1000 Guadalupe St. Austin, TX 78701. 3.The Appellant, (herein referred to as “Hunter”), is not and never has been a resident of Texas. Hunter’s only tie to the Appellees arises from Hunter’s non- resident Texas insurance license. Hunter filed an Original Verified Petition for Declaratory Judgment (“Pet DJ”) and three motions (collectively referred to as “Petition and Motions”) with the Clerk in June -5- 2013. See Appendix pp 1-79. The Pet DJ1 seeks relief from the unlawful actions taken by Eleanor Kitzman (“Kitzman”), the then Commissioner of Insurance of the Texas Department of Insurance (“TDI”), John/Jane Doe, the incoming Commissioner of Insurance of TDI, and the TDI (referred to as “Appellees”). 4.The Pet DJ2 seeks a declaratory judgment that formally establishes that the Rules and Statutes relied upon by the Appellees are unconstitutionally vague, unconstitutionally vague as applied, have been misapplied, and have been misinterpreted and, as a result, the Official Order of the Texas Commissioner of Insurance, No. 2497, dated May 8, 2013, ("Order of Revocation") is not effective. 5.The Pet DJ3 seeks a declaratory judgment that formally establishes that the Order of Revocation is not effective pursuant Gov’t Code 2001.054(c) et seq. 6.The Pet DJ4 seeks a declaratory judgment that formally establishes that the Order of Revocation is 1 See Appendix pp 7-73 2 See Appendix pp 7-73 3 supra 4 supra -6- void for any and all other relevant reasons including, but not limited to, fraud upon the court, extrinsic fraud, intrinsic fraud, common law fraud, constitutionality grounds, adverse to public policy, contrary to Texas laws, and contrary to federal laws. 7.The Clerk has refused to perform ministerial duties, has inserted into the court record documents that contain false statements, has refused to provide Hunter with services, and has therefore blocked the adjudication of Hunter’s lawsuit in the Travis County District Court (“TCDC”). 8.Judge Dietz has refused to act upon every motion Hunter filed with the TCDC and filed directly with Judge Dietz. 9.As a result, the Clerk and Judge Dietz have blocked Hunter’s Pet DJ from moving forward beyond the ministerial event of being filed with the TCDC. 10. Judge Dietz entered an Order of Dismissal on August 25, 2014, due to want of prosecution. -7- 11. But the record proves that Hunter’s lawsuit was stalled only because the Clerk and Judge Dietz refused to perform ministerial duties. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. 12. The Order of Dismissal (“Dismissal”) was entered on August 25, 2014. Hunter was notified of this Dismissal by mail. 13. Hunter mailed her Motion to Reinstate (“MTR”) to the TCDC on September 22, 2014, using USPS priority mail with tracking number 9114901189866871050039. This is a timely filing pursuant to Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure (“TRAP”) 9.2(b)(1). The USPS records show that this MTR was delivered to the Clerk on September 24, 2014. The Third District Court of Appeal record 03-14-00641-cv contains a copy of the MTR filed with the Clerk; and it shows that the Clerk filed the MTR on September 26, 2014. See Appendix pp. 120-125 14. Hunter received no notice of a hearing scheduled pursuant to TRCP 165a(3). -8- 15. Therefore, on October 23, 2014, Hunter faxed her MTR directly to Judge Dietz. See Appendix pp. 109-119. Hunter also mailed her MTR directly to Judge Dietz using USPS certified mail, restricted delivery with tracking number 70132630000059320601. The USPS records show that this MTR was delivered to Judge Dietz on October 28, 2014. 16. Hunter received no notice of a hearing scheduled pursuant to TRCP 165a(3). 17. No hearing was held on Hunter’s MTR. 18. Hunter mailed her Notice of Appeal (“NOA”) on November 23, 2014, to the Clerk. Hunter also filed her notice of appeal electronically with this Court on November 24, 2014. See Appendix p. 126. This is a timely filing of this NOA pursuant to TRAP 26.1(a)(3) and 25.1(a). ORAL ARGUMENT. 19. Oral argument is not requested. ISSUES PRESENTED 1) The Clerk and Judge Dietz have refused to perform ministerial duties (other than filing documents and entering the Dismissal for want of prosecution). -9- 2) The Clerk refused to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (“TRCP”) 145 (a) which sets forth that upon the filing of the affidavit [of indigency], “the clerk must docket the action, issue citation and provide such other customary services as are provided any party.” And Judge Dietz refused to perform ministerial duties to respond to Hunter’s motions asking that he direct the Clerk to perform her ministerial duties and to comply with TRCP 145(a). 3) After the Order of Dismissal was entered in the TCDC, Hunter filed a Motion for Reinstatement (“MFR”) with the Clerk and also directly with Judge Dietz. Pursuant to TRCP 165a(3), the TCDC was required to hold a hearing on this MFR. But it did not. STATEMENT OF FACTS. SUMMARY 19. The Clerk refused to perform all ministerial duties except the filing of documents; and she inserted false documents into the TCDC record. 20. Judge Dietz has refused to act upon Hunter’s motions filed with the Court and filed directly with Judge Dietz and dismissed Hunter’s lawsuit for want of prosecution despite having known or should have known that the only reason why the lawsuit did not move forward is because both the Clerk and Judge - 10 - Dietz refused to perform the required ministerial duties that would have moved Hunter’s lawsuit forward. DETAILS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY 21. Hunter filed her Petition and Motions with the Clerk by United States Postal Service (“USPS”), pre- paid, first-class, USPS Tracking™ on June 4, 2013. See Appendix pp 1-79. The Petition and Motions were mailed to PO Box 1748, Austin TX 78767. The USPS tracking number for the mailing envelope is 9505500001113155000188. See Appendix p. 127 22. By telephone, an employee of the Clerk named Bari told Hunter that Hunter’s Petition and Motions were filed on June 7, 2013; that an “assessment of fee” was entered in the Clerk’s docket system on June 18, 2013; and that an “agreement letter” was entered in the Clerk’s docket system on June 19, 2013. This “agreement letter” falsely states that Hunter agreed to pay the Clerk’s filing fee. See Appendix p. 128 23. Hunter filed an affidavit of indigency with her Petition and Motions; and did not agree to pay the Clerk’s filing fee. Since Hunter filed an affidavit - 11 - of indigency, the Clerk is required pursuant TRCP Rule 145(a) to provide Hunter with the same services provided any other person without charge. But she did not. 24. The Clerk did not contest Hunter’s affidavit of indigency verbally or in writing. 25. Judge Dietz did not schedule and did not hold any hearings in the underlying cause even though he was required by statute to hold at least one hearing on Hunter’s MTR. See TRCP 165a(3). ARGUMENT. 26. The Clerk refused to perform her ministerial duties and refused to comply with TRCP Rules 145(a) and 145(d). 27. The remedy in such circumstances directs Hunter to attempt to resolve the issue directly with a district judge, explaining in a verified motion that the clerk is refusing to perform her ministerial duties. See In re Nubine No. 13-08-507-CV, 2008 Tex. App. LEXIS 6534, (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi Aug. 27, 2008, orig. proceeding)(mem. Op.)(per curiam); see also In re - 12 - Bernard, 993 S.W.2d 453, 454-544 (Tex. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, orig. proceeding)(O’Connor, J., concurring.) 28. Hunter filed a motion directly with Judge Dietz5 and he did not respond to it. 29. The Clerk refused to provide services to Hunter. The Clerk will not answer her telephone when Hunter calls and will not respond to facsimiles Hunter sends. 30. The Clerk and Judge Dietz deprived Hunter of her rights under TRCP 145(a), under the Due Process clause of the United States Constitution, and under Hunter’s human right to fair treatment, to access the court, to protection under the law, and to protection by the TCDC from the unlawful actions by the Appellees6. 31. One of the fundamental principles of due process of law is fair notice to an ordinary person of what is required and what is prohibited. See Connally V. General Construction Co., 269 U.S. 385, 391 (1926). TRCP Rules 145(a), 145(d), and 165a(3) clearly 5 See Appendix pp 80-94 6 See Appendix pp 7-73 - 13 - articulate that which is required of Hunter, of the Clerk and of Judge Dietz. But the Clerk and Judge Dietz refused to comply with these TRCP’s, refused to enforce these TRCP’s, and refused to act in accordance with Hunter’s Due Process rights. 32. Due process requires that laws provide standards to prevent arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement. See Grayned v. City of Rockford, 408 U.S. 104, 108 (1972). TRCP 145(a), 145(d), and 165a(3) provide clear standards but the Clerk has refused to comply with them, and this has prejudiced Hunter. And Judge Dietz has refused to respond to every motion Hunter filed with the Clerk and with Judge Dietz directly, including but not limited to, motions asking him to enforce TRCP(a) by directing the Clerk to comply with TRCP 145(a) and asking him to comply with TRCP 165a(3). PRAYER. 33. Hunter respectfully requests that this Court take jurisdiction of this case, and that upon reviewing this matter: (1) grant this Petition, (2) reverse the - 14 - Order of Dismissal, (3) direct Judge Dietz to direct the Clerk to (a) issue citations in TCDC case D-1-GN- 13001957, (b) cause service of process upon the defendants in TCDC case D-1-GN-13001957, (c) provide Hunter with all customary services provided any other party without charge, (d) provide Hunter with free access to http://www.idocket.com so that Hunter can view her case progress, or in the alternative, send Hunter a weekly statement by facsimile at 703-997- 5999 that accurately reflects the activity of any cause pending in which Hunter is a party, (4) direct the TCDC to enter an order that transfers this lawsuit to this Court for adjudication since the TCDC has refused to comply with the United States Constitution and the aforementioned TRCP’s and has refused to perform its ministerial duties to adjudicate this lawsuit since June 2013, (5) award Hunter her reasonable attorney's fees and costs, and (6) award Hunter such further relief to which she may be entitled. Respectfully Submitted, - 15 - /s/ Chase Carmen Hunter Chase Carmen Hunter Appellant, pro se 340 S. Walnut Ave. #9039 Walnut, CA 91789 Tel: 707-706-3647 Fax: 703-997-5999 Email: Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com CERTIFICATION I, Chase Carmen Hunter, certify that I have reviewed this petition and conclude that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the appendix or record. ______________________ Chase Carmen Hunter CERTIFICATION I, Chase Carmen Hunter, swear under penalty of perjury that the documents shown in the appendix are true and accurate copies of those documents that are contained in the record in the underlying cause. I have received no documents related to the underlying cause other than Appendix pp 1, 7, 74, 77, 102, and 128. The Clerk will not answer the telephone and will not provide me with customary services “provided any party”. So, I have not asked the Clerk to provide certified copies. Further, I am indigent and cannot afford to pay the Clerk for certified copies and the Respondents have refused to act in compliance with TRCP Rule 145(a), have refused to answer the telephone when I call, and have refused to respond to my facsimiles sent. ______________________ Chase Carmen Hunter - 16 - CERTIFICATION IN COMPLIANCE WITH TEX. R. APP. P 9.4(i)(2)(B) and 9.4(i)(3) I, Chase Carmen Hunter, certify that this Petition contains 1,815 words and 11 pages. Chase Carmen Hunter CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Appeal and Motion was served upon the parties shown below as indicated: Eleanor Kitzman, Julia Rathgeber, and the Texas Department of Insurance By email on January 15, 2015 at ChiefClerk@tdi.state.tx.us Facsimile: 512-490-1064 Cynthia A. Morales Assistant Attorney General By Email on January 15, 2015 at Cynthia.Morales@texasattorneygeneral.gov Facsimile: (512) 477-2348 Chase Carmen Hunter - 17 - No. 03-14-00737-cv _____________________________________ IN THE THIRD COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS _____________________________________ CHASE CARMEN HUNTER v. ELEANOR KITZMAN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, JULIA RATHGEBER IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE APPENDIX TO APPELLANT’S BRIEF WITHOUT ORAL ARGUMENT From Cause D-1-GN-13001957 In The 250th District Travis County, Texas, The Honorable John K. Dietz Presiding Chase Carmen Hunter, pro se 340 S. Lemon Ave. #9039 Walnut, CA 91789 Telephone: 707-706-3647 Facsimile: 703-997-5999 Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com -1- To the Honorable Justices of the Court: The Appendix is attached. Respectfully Submitted, /s/ Chase Carmen Hunter Chase Carmen Hunter Appellant, pro se 340 S. Walnut Ave. #9039, Walnut, CA 91789 Tel: 707-706-3647, Fax: 703-997-5999 Email: Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com CERTIFICATION I, Chase Carmen Hunter, swear under penalty of perjury that the documents shown in the appendix are true and accurate copies of those documents that are contained in the record in the underlying court. I have received no documents related to the underlying cause other than Appendix pp 1, 7, 74, 77, 102, and 128. ______________________ Chase Carmen Hunter CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Petition for Appeal and Motion was served upon the parties shown below as indicated: Eleanor Kitzman, Julia Rathgeber, and the Texas Department of Insurance By email on January 15, 2015 at ChiefClerk@tdi.state.tx.us Facsimile: 512-490-1064 Cynthia A. Morales -2- Assistant Attorney General By Email on January 15, 2015 at Cynthia.Morales@texasattorneygeneral.gov Facsimile: (512) 477-2348 Chase Carmen Hunter -3- APPENDIX P. 000001 APPENDIX P. 000002 APPENDIX P. 000003 APPENDIX P. 000004 APPENDIX P. 000005 APPENDIX P. 000006 APPENDIX P. 000007 APPENDIX P. 000008 APPENDIX P. 000009 APPENDIX P. 000010 APPENDIX P. 000011 APPENDIX P. 000012 APPENDIX P. 000013 APPENDIX P. 000014 APPENDIX P. 000015 APPENDIX P. 000016 APPENDIX P. 000017 APPENDIX P. 000018 APPENDIX P. 000019 APPENDIX P. 000020 APPENDIX P. 000021 APPENDIX P. 000022 APPENDIX P. 000023 APPENDIX P. 000024 APPENDIX P. 000025 APPENDIX P. 000026 APPENDIX P. 000027 APPENDIX P. 000028 APPENDIX P. 000029 APPENDIX P. 000030 APPENDIX P. 000031 APPENDIX P. 000032 APPENDIX P. 000033 APPENDIX P. 000034 APPENDIX P. 000035 APPENDIX P. 000036 APPENDIX P. 000037 APPENDIX P. 000038 APPENDIX P. 000039 APPENDIX P. 000040 APPENDIX P. 000041 APPENDIX P. 000042 APPENDIX P. 000043 APPENDIX P. 000044 APPENDIX P. 000045 APPENDIX P. 000046 APPENDIX P. 000047 APPENDIX P. 000048 APPENDIX P. 000049 APPENDIX P. 000050 APPENDIX P. 000051 APPENDIX P. 000052 APPENDIX P. 000053 APPENDIX P. 000054 APPENDIX P. 000055 APPENDIX P. 000056 APPENDIX P. 000057 APPENDIX P. 000058 APPENDIX P. 000059 APPENDIX P. 000060 APPENDIX P. 000061 APPENDIX P. 000062 APPENDIX P. 000063 APPENDIX P. 000064 APPENDIX P. 000065 APPENDIX P. 000066 APPENDIX P. 000067 APPENDIX P. 000068 APPENDIX P. 000069 APPENDIX P. 000070 APPENDIX P. 000071 APPENDIX P. 000072 APPENDIX P. 000073 APPENDIX P. 000074 APPENDIX P. 000075 APPENDIX P. 000076 APPENDIX P. 000077 It is not possible for Hunter to appear in person because she is a resident of Virginia, has been a resident of Virginia for more than twenty-five (25) years, has never 1 resided in Texas, has not been in Texas since the year 2001 or 2002, and is indigent . Hunter is indigent, in part, due to her extended distraction from being able to substantially perform her job duties because she has had to devote her time, money and resources defending the underlying administrative cause brought against her by the Defendants in Decemeber 2011. Hunter’s Original Verified Petition for Declaratory Judgment sets forth throughout and in numbered paragraph 203 that the Defendants’ unconscionable actions have seriously injured Hunter’s professional reputation on a national scale. Hunter has had to exhaust countless hours to try to mitigate the damage, if possible, inflicted upon her maliciously by the Defendants. The Original Verified Petition For Declaratory Judgment is indubitably meritorious. It is well settled in Texas law that when a person cannot appear personally during a civil action, the person should be allowed to proceed by affidavit, deposition, telephone, or other effective means. See Reyna v. Mitchell, 2008 WL 5062954 at *2; In re Marriage of Bolton, 256 S.W.3d at 833 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.), Boulden v. Boulden, 133 S.W.3d 886-87 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2004, no pet.), Green v. Kaposta, No. 05-08-01041-CV, 2009 WL 4045249, *1 (Tex. App.-Dallas Nov. 24, 2009, no pet.) (mem. op.), In re R.C.R., 230 S.W.3d at 426; Sweed, 139 S.W.3d at 452; Allen v. Rushing, 129 S.W.3d 226, 230 (Tex.App.-Texarkana 2004, no pet.); Aguilar v. Alvarado, 39 S.W.3d 244, 248 (Tex.App.-Waco 1999, pet. denied). For all the reasons set forth herein and set forth in the Original Verified Petition for Declaratory Judgment, Hunter respectfully requests that this Court appoint a lawyer, 1 See Original Verified Motion To Proceed In Forma Pauperis APPENDIX P. 000078 without charge, who will assist Hunter in her continued efforts to protect her constitutional rights and human rights. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that this Court grant the Motion To Appear By Affidavit and By Telephone For Any And All Hearings And Motion For Court-Appointed Counsel To Assist The Plaintiff and to grant any other relief to which Hunter is entitled. Respectfully Submitted, NOTE TO THIRD COURT OF APPEAL: I, CHASE CARMEN ___________________ HUNTER, SIGNED THE Chase Carmen Hunter MOTION THAT I PO Box 9075 FILED WITH THE Fredericksburg, VA 22403 (707) 706-3647 (Phone) TCDC (703) 997-5999 (Fax) Plaintiff, pro se CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing Motion To Appear By Affidavit and By Telephone For Any And All Hearings And Motion For Court- Appointed Counsel To Assist The Plaintiff was served upon the parties shown below as indicated Chief Clerk Texas Department of Insurance ChiefClerk@tdi.texas.gov Greg Abbott, Attorney General of Texas greg.abbott@texasattorneygeneral.gov ____________________ Chase Carmen Hunter APPENDIX P. 000079 PLEASE DELIVER TO JUDGE JOHN K DIETZ APPENDIX P. 000080 Cause No. D-1-GN-13001957 CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, v. TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS ELEANOR KITZMAN IN HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, JOHN/JANE DOE IN HIS/HER OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS INTERIM COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, OR AS COMMISSIONER OF INSURANCE, AND THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF INSURANCE, SERVE GREG ABBOTT, THE ATTORNEY GENERAL OF TEXAS, Defendants. 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFIED MOTION DIRECTLY FILED WITH JUDGE JOHN K. DIETZ FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION DIRECTED TO THE HONORABLE AMALIA RODRIGUEZ-MENDOZA, CLERK OF THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY TEXAS CERTIFICATION. I, Chase Carmen Hunter, state under penalty of perjury that the following facts and argument are true and correct. -1- APPENDIX P. 000081 APPENDIX P. 000082 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. 6. This Court has jurisdiction to grant this petition for writ of mandamus and prohibition under Section 24.011 of the Texas Government Code and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 74. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION 1. Whether or not Mendoza has interfered this Court’s jurisdiction by violating Hunter’s substantive and procedural Due Process rights by refusing to comply with Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 (a) which sets forth that upon the filing of the affidavit [of indigency], the clerk must “docket the action, issue citation and provide such other customary services as are provided any party.” a. Hunter has called Mendoza’s office as many times as eight (8) times in one day without reaching a person or voicemail system. Sometimes, Hunter reaches a person by telephone who has told Hunter that she has no answers to basic questions regarding the docketing and processing of Hunter’s action. Hunter has sent facsimiles to Mendoza requesting status updates of her case. But Mendoza has refused to respond. Mendoza has contacted Hunter and has left only mysterious voicemail messages and has sent only mysterious emails that only ask Hunter to contact Mendoza. But no details are provided. Hunter has attempted to return such mysterious communications received from Mendoza’s office but a person seldom answers the telephone, there is no voicemail system, and the person who answers is unable to find Hunter’s Pet DJ, unable to explain why the attempt to electronically file was rejected, and unable to provide a status of the processing of Hunter’s action. b. Mendoza has refused to give Hunter free access to Mendoza’s docket information system so that Hunter can view the status of her case. Providing Hunter with access to view the docket entries of her case is a customary service that is provided any other party. Since Hunter has filed an affidavit of indigency and is indigent, Mendoza is required to provide Hunter free access to the docket information system to view the -3- APPENDIX P. 000083 progress of her case, or in the alternative, send Hunter the information that can be found in the idocket.com information system by facsimile once per week. 2. Whether or not Mendoza has interfered and is interfering in this Court’s jurisdiction by violating Hunter’s substantive and procedural Due Process rights by attempting to circumvent the requirement of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 145 (d) by a. denying Hunter’s affidavit [of indigency], b. trying to communicate her denial of Hunter’s affidavit [of indigency] by telephoning Hunter, and c. communicating a denial of Hunter’s affidavit [of indigency] by emailing Hunter. ISSUES PRESENTED FOR PETITION FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF 1. Whether or not Mendoza is violating and has violated Hunter’s Due Process rights and Texas Rule of Civil Procedure (“TRCP”) Rule 145(a) and has refused to perform her ministerial duties by a. failing to “provide such other customary services as are provided any party”. Mendoza has refused to issue citations, refused to cause the service of process upon the defendants, has refused to answer her telephone when Hunter calls her, has refused to respond to Hunter’s facsimiles, and has refused to give Hunter free access to Mendoza’s docket information system so that the Hunter can view the status of her case. Providing Hunter with access to view the docket entries of her case is a customary service that is provided any other party. Since Hunter has filed an affidavit of indigency and is indigent, Mendoza is required to provide Hunter with free access to the docket information system to view the progress of her case, or in the alternative, send Hunter the information that can be found in the idocket.com information system by facsimile once per week. b. telling Hunter that she cannot file a motion for court-appointed counsel and refusing to file said motion. STATEMENT OF FACTS. -4- APPENDIX P. 000084 7. Hunter filed her Original Verified Petition for Declaratory Judgment (“Pet DJ”) with Mendoza’s office on May 25, 2013, by electronic filing. Hunter received correspondence from Ruben Tamez, who works in Mendoza’s office, stating only that this electronic filing was rejected and that Hunter needed to contact Mendoza. 8. On June 16, 2013, Hunter sent a facsimile to every district court in Travis County as follows: “To Whom It May Concern: I attempted to electronically file my civil petition and two motions on May 25, 2013. My filing was rejected with no reason given. I was directed to contact Ruben Tamez by telephone to discuss what I needed to successfully file my civil petition. I called the telephone number given, 512- 854-5841, eight (8) times on June 3, 2013. But Mr. Tamez did not answer and there is no voicemail. A woman answered two or three times but could not tell me why my filing was rejected because she did not know. I therefore mailed my civil petition along with three motions on June 4, 2013, to the address shown on your website which is PO Box 1748, Austin TX 78767. The tracking number of my mailed envelope is 9505500001113155000188. The United States Postal Service insists that my envelope was delivered. Yet, my petition has not yet been docketed. I spoke with Mr. Tamez on June 10th and 14th, 2013, and he states that he cannot find my petition. I am especially disappointed to be told by Mr. Tamez that the PO Box shown on your website is not the correct mailing address for the civil district court. Mr. Tamez told me on June 14, 2013, that PO Box 679003 is the correct mailing address. I am indigent and I have now spent more than $14 in postage and electronic filing fees and my petition has not been docketed and cannot be found. I have also spent money printing the approximate 100 pages that make up the petition and three motions that seem to be lost. -5- APPENDIX P. 000085 I am desperately seeking your help in locating my civil petition and three motions and docketing them promptly. Please, look for my civil petition and my three motions and docket them expeditiously.” 9. During one telephone call on June 3, 2013, Hunter spoke with Brooke Daniel 1 (“Daniel”) who told Hunter that Daniel did not know why the electronic filing of Hunter’s Pet DJ was rejected. Daniel was able to view Hunter’s electronic filing and told Hunter that Hunter could not file a motion for court-appointed counsel [which was filed electronically along with the Pet DJ]. Hunter explained to Daniel that Hunter could not withhold or withdraw a motion she wanted to file based only on Daniel’s suggestion and that Hunter was seeking a ruling by the judge on the motion. 10. On about June 18, 2013, Hunter was contacted by Mendoza and given a case number for her Pet DJ which is D-1-GN-13001957. Hunter subsequently received from Mendoza file-stamped copies of the first pages of her Pet DJ and accompanying motions that she mailed to Mendoza on June 4, 2013. The file stamps show that the pages were file stamped on June 7, 2013, and the date of mailing of said file-stamped copies to Hunter was June 19, 2013. 1 She is also erroneously referred to as “Brook Daniels”. Her correct name is “Brooke Daniel”. -6- APPENDIX P. 000086 11. On June 18, 2013, Hunter sent the following letter by facsimile: “To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: D-1-GN-13001957 Dear Ms. Daniels: I received a voicemail from you today but you did not tell me what you need. I called you back and left a voicemail message. I called a total of three of four times. I still cannot find my case on iDocket.com. I am indigent and cannot afford to pay to buy CHIPS on iDocket.com to view my case which costs a whopping $14 to view the case the first time and $7 each additional time. As you can see by my petition, I have been defending an unconscionable government action against me since 2011, and defending this unreasonable action has made it difficult for me to perform my job duties and to earn a living. Is there a way that you can communicate with me by fax? Fax number is 703-997-5999. Otherwise, I will keep trying to reach you by phone.” 12. On June 25, 2013, Hunter sent the following letter by facsimile: “To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: D-1-GN-13001957 Dear Ms. Daniels: I received a voicemail message from you at 5:26pm EST on June 18, 2013, and at 10:14am EST on June 19, 2013. Your voicemail messages only asked that I call you. You have -7- APPENDIX P. 000087 never communicated with me any reason why you are calling or what you need. You have always stated only that you want me to call you. However, I have called you repeatedly and there is no answer. I have left voicemail messages. I sent you a fax on June 18, 2013, asking you to communicate with me in writing due to this communication problem. I do not understand the very mysterious nature of your communication with me and the fierce effort I must exhaust just to get my petition docketed and to try to understand the mysterious communications from you and Ruben in which you both simply state that you need me to contact you. But each and every time I call either one of you, there is no answer and Ruben has no voicemail. Please, communicate with me the specific reasons why you are calling me by fax. Fax number is 703-997-5999.” 13. On June 25, 2013, Hunter sent the following second letter by facsimile and email: “From: <--Chase Hunter--> [mailto:ChaseH@ChaseAgency.com] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:41 PM To: 'Brooke Daniel' Subject: RE: reply to fax Dear Ms. Daniel: Can you provide me with a court order that communicates this decision please? I cannot appeal an email. I need a court order. Can you fax this court order to me and mail the order to me? Fax: 703-997-5999 mail: PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Thank you, Chase Hunter From: Brooke Daniel [mailto:Brooke.Daniel@co.travis.tx.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:21 PM To: chaseh@chaseagency.com Subject: reply to fax -8- APPENDIX P. 000088 Ms. Hunter, I am currently at my desk and if you call me now I can help you. I’m sorry if you have had trouble reaching me. You have been sending a fax to the judge’s office, but I work in the district clerk’s office. If you must send a fax to me, please send it to my fax number at (512)854-6627. I was calling to inform you that your Affidavit of Inability to pay costs was not approved. We did not waive the filings fees, however, you were approved for a payment plan. Also, if you would like any citations to be issued, please request them in writing. Also, we do not accept fax filings so you will have to either mail in your letter requesting service, or eFile it if you are not able to file in person. Please be advised that you will be responsible for the citation and constable service fees, and these will be added to your payment plan if you would like to request service. I will be at my desk for rest of the day if you would like to call me with any questions, or feel free to reply to this email. Brooke Daniel 53rd Court Clerk Travis County District Clerk 1000 Guadalupe St., 3rd Floor Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512)854-5881 Fax: (512)854-6627” 14. On June 25, 2013, Hunter sent the following third letter by facsimile: “To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: D-1-GN-13001957 – THIRD FAX FOR JUNE 25, 2013 Dear Ms. Daniels: I received a voicemail message from you on June 25, 2013 at 3:59pm EST. You stated: “I had a couple of things to tell you about your case that I would like to tell you over the phone and not in a message.” As you can see by my petition, -9- APPENDIX P. 000089 I am defending an unconscionable government action and you work for that same government. I am very concerned at how much effort I had to exert just to get my petition docketed. In response to your email which I have attached, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not give you discretion under Rule 145(a) to refuse to docket, issue citations, and provide such other customary services. However, Rule 145(d) allows the clerk to contest the affidavit by filing a written contest. See below. Given that this is the law of Texas, I expect that you will treat me in accordance with the law. As such, you must issue citations and provide such other customary services. RULE 145. AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY (a) Affidavit. In lieu of paying or giving security for costs of an original action, a party who is unable to afford costs must file an affidavit as herein described. A “party who is unable to afford costs” is defined as a person who is presently receiving a governmental entitlement based on indigency or any other person who has no ability to pay costs. Upon the filing of the affidavit, the clerk must docket the action, issue citation and provide such other customary services as are provided any party. (d) Contest. The defendent or the clerk may contest an affidavit that is not accompanied by an IOLTA certificate by filing a written contest giving notice to all parties and, in an appeal under Texas Government Code, Section 28.052, notice to both the small claims court and the county clerk. A party’s affidavit of inability that attests to receipt of government entitlement based on indigency may be contested only with respect to the veracity of the attestation. Temporary hearings will not be continued pending the filing of the contest. If the court finds at the first regular hearing in the course of the action that the party (other than a party receiving a governmental entitlement based on indigency) is able to afford costs, the party must pay the costs of the action. Reasons for such a finding must be contained in an order. Except with leave of court, no further steps in the action will be taken by a party who is - 10 - APPENDIX P. 000090 found able to afford costs until payment is made. If the party’s action results in monetary award, and the court finds sufficient evidence monetary award to reimburse costs, the party must pay the costs of the action. If the court finds that another party to the suit can pay the costs of the action, the other party must pay the costs of the action.” 15. Since June 25, 2013, Hunter has contacted Mendoza many times by facsimile and by telephone and requested basic status information about her case. Mendoza has been non-responsive. 16. Hunter can view the basic status information about her case on idocket.com which is the electronic information system provided by Mendoza for use by the general public. 17. But the only information provided for free on idocket.com is the style of the case. If additional information is requested, the requestor is required to purchase CHIPS. Two CHIPS are required to view the case information the first time. One CHIP is required for each subsequent day. Five CHIPS cost $32.49. Essentially, it costs about $14 for Hunter to simply view her case information the first time on idocket.com and $7 each additional day. 18. Since Hunter filed an affidavit of indigency, Mendoza is required pursuant TRCP 145(a) to provide Hunter with the same services provided any other person without charge. 19. But Mendoza has no established system for granting Hunter access to her case information on idocket.com without charge. - 11 - APPENDIX P. 000091 20. Mendoza has refused to respond to Hunter’s requests made by telephone and by facsimile asking for the status details of her case that can be otherwise viewed on idocket.com. 21. Upon information and belief, Mendoza has not issued the citations and has not taken steps to cause the service of process upon the Defendants. Hunter has received no correspondence from the defendants or from Mendoza. 22. The TCDC cannot legally take jurisdiction over the defendants if there is no proof of service of process in the record. 23. Mendoza’s refusal to issue citations and to effect service of process upon the Defendants is blocking the TCDC’s jurisdiction in case D-1-GN-13001957. ARGUMENT. GROUNDS TO GRANT PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION. 24. There is no adequate remedy by appeal because Mendoza is blocking this Court’s jurisdiction. Mendoza has shut and locked the courthouse doors so that Hunter cannot enter. 25. Mendoza is refusing to perform her ministerial duties. 26. Mendoza is refusing to comply with TRCP 145(a). 27. Mendoza is denying Hunter her substantive and procedural Due Process rights. PRAYER FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND PROHIBITION. - 12 - APPENDIX P. 000092 APPENDIX P. 000093 NOTE TO THIRD COURT OF APPEAL: THIS IS NOT THE CLERK'S CORRECT EMAIL ADDRESS. I, CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, SUBSEQUENTLY EMAILED THIS MOTION WRIT CLERK TO THE CLERK AT AMALIA.RODRIGUEZ- MENDOZA@CO.TRAVIS.TX.US APPENDIX P. 000094 iDocket.com - CHIP Charge. Page 1 of 1 iDocket.com Service Your iDocket.com subscription does not include, in the Basic Access Plan, the ability to use the feature you have selected. The service is, however, available for a charge. Additional Name, Advanced and Case Number Search - 1 CHIP for each Search. Case History - 2 CHIPS first time a case is viewed, 1 CHIP afterward per day. Please indicate how you would like to proceed by clicking the appropriate button below. Purchase CHIPS Upgrade My Subscription Cancel Copyright © 1999-2013 iDocket.com. All rights reserved. Unauthorized access is prohibited. Usage will be monitored. APPENDIX P. 000095 http://idocket.com/cgi-bin/db2www/c_h_all.mbr/run?st=028&cnty=ISD&doct=V%20%2... 10/07/2013 Court Center Document Image Index. Page 1 of 1 Quantity of CHIPS Gold Plan Silver Plan Bronze Plan Free Plan 5 $ 24.99 $ 27.49 $ 29.99 $ 32.49 40 $ 179.99 $ 199.99 $ 219.99 $ 239.99 200 $ 799.99 $ 899.99 $ 999.99 $ 1099.99 500 $ 1999.99 $ 2249.99 $ 2499.99 $ 2749.99 User ID: hulk900 Subscription Type: Free Billing Term: Monthly Expiration Date: 06/01/2023 CHIP Balance: 0 Number CHIPS 5 ALERT! Credit Card Number: A signed Memorandum of Agreement is Credit Card Type: required to be filed with iDocket.com Expiration date: before document images can be purchased with CHIPS Cardholder's First Name: *Allow 24 hours to process Cardholder's Last Name: Processing your payment may take a moment. To prevent your account from being drafted more than once, click the 'Submit' button only one time. Submit Cancel * You must read, print, sign and fax the Memorandum of Agreement to purchase document images. About CHIPS Upgrade Plan APPENDIX P. 000096 https://secure.idocket.com/idocket/buychips.asp 10/07/2013 ProDoc® eFiling - Filing Details Page 1 of 1 Filed Date & Time Date: Time | Time Zone: Tuesday, May 28, 2013 4:35 AM | Central (U.S. and Canada) Filing Status Definitions ··· Filing Status Information ··· Trace Number: ED227J017508193 Clerk Comments: Mrs Hunter, I had to reject your petition. If you Current Status: Alert (see clerk comments) could please contact me at 512-854-5841 to discuss what needs to be done to file this petition with the court. Thank you. Ruben Tamez. Fee Est.Amount Payment Information Filing Fees: Payment Method: Credit Card Petition or Application: Civil $252.00 Address: PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Other Services Provided: Credit Card Type: Visa Clerk Fee Adjustment -$282.00 Card Number: XXXX XXXX XXXX 8223 Jury Fee $30.00 Cardholder Name: chase carmen Hunter ProDoc, Inc.: eFiling/eService Fee $3.00 8.25% Sales Tax $0.25 State eFiling Processing Fees: Electronic Processing $5.19 Total Estimated Fees: $8.44 Final Amount Billed: $0.00 Personal Information Filing Information Filer: chase hunter Case Title: Hunter v. Kitzman, et al Attorney of Record: chase hunter Matter Number/ Firm or Organization: Chase Carmen Hunter Description: Original Verified Petition For Declaratory Judgmen DL Number: T59602376 Sealed Case: No Address: PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 County Name: Travis Phone: (540) 429-8660 Court Type: District Fax: (XXX) XXX Jurisdiction: Travis District - Civil Email: chase_hunter@yahoo.com Document Type: Petition or Application: Civil Petitioner(s) / Plaintiff(s): chase hunter Other Services Requested: Jury Fee Clerk Fee Adjustment Adjustment Amount: -282 Document Information Service Recipients Refresh Documents Total Pages:76 Document Being Filed: Petitionex.pdf Attachments: Motionifp.pdf motiontoappeartelelawyer.pdf APPENDIX P. 000097 https://www.prodocefile.com/ViewFiling.aspx 03/06/2013 Chase Carmen Hunter PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Tel: (707) 706-3647 Fax: (703) 997-5999 Email: ChaseH@ChaseAgency.com June 16, 2013 To: All Travis County Civil and Criminal District Courts as follows: 53rd Civil fax: 512-854-9332 98th Civil fax: 512-854-9338 126th Civil fax: 512-854-9332 200th Civil fax: 512-854-4523 201st Civil fax: 512-854-2268 250th Civil fax: 512-854-9332 261st Civil fax: 512-854-9332 345th Civil fax: 512-854-4540 353rd Civil fax: 512-854-9332 419th Civil fax: 512-854-2224 147th Criminal fax: 512-854-4464 167th Criminal fax: 512-854-6425 299th Criminal fax: 512-854-4464 331st Criminal fax: 512-854-9140 390th Criminal fax: 512-854-4680 403rd Criminal fax: 512-854-4683 427th Criminal fax: 512-854-2227 magistrate fax: 512-854-9140 RE: A Petition styled Chase Carmen Hunter v. Eleanor Kitzman et al., and three related motions I mailed to Travis County District Court that have not been docketed and appear to be lost somewhere in the District Court, and I am trying to locate them and get them docketed. To Whom It May Concern: I attempted to electronically file my civil petition and two motions on May 25, 2013. My filing was rejected with no reason given. I was directed to contact Ruben Tamez by telephone to discuss what I needed to successfully file my civil petition. I called the telephone number given, 512-854-5841, eight (8) times on June 3, 2013. But Mr. Tamez did not answer and there is no voicemail. A woman answered two or three times but could not tell me why my filing was rejected because she did not know. APPENDIX P. 000098 I therefore mailed my civil petition along with three motions on June 4, 2013, to the address shown on your website which is PO Box 1748, Austin TX 78767. The tracking number of my mailed envelope is 9505500001113155000188. The United States Postal Service insists that my envelope was delivered. Yet, my petition has not yet been docketed. I spoke with Mr. Tamez on June 10th and 14th, 2013, and he states that he cannot find my petition. I am especially disappointed to be told by Mr. Tamez that the PO Box shown on your website is not the correct mailing address for the civil district court. Mr. Tamez told me on June 14, 2013, that PO Box 679003 is the correct mailing address. I am indigent and I have now spent more than $14 in postage and electronic filing fees and my petition has not been docketed and cannot be found. I have also spent money printing the approximate 100 pages that make up the petition and three motions that seem to be lost. I am desperately seeking your help in locating my civil petition and three motions and docketing them promptly. Please, look for my civil petition and my three motions and docket them expeditiously. Sincerely, /cch/ Chase Carmen Hunter APPENDIX P. 000099 Chase Carmen Hunter PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Tel: (707) 706-3647 Fax: (703) 997-5999 Email: ChaseH@ChaseAgency.com June 18, 2013 To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: D-1-GN-13001957 Dear Ms. Daniels: I received a voicemail from you today but you did not tell me what you need. I called you back and left a voicemail message. I called a total of three of four times. I still cannot find my case on iDocket.com. I am indigent and cannot afford to pay to buy CHIPS on iDocket.com to view my case which costs a whopping $14 to view the case the first time and $7 each additional time. As you can see by my petition, I have been defending an unconscionable government action against me since 2011, and defending this unreasonable action has made it difficult for me to perform my job duties and to earn a living. Is there a way that you can communicate with me by fax? Fax number is 703-997-5999. Otherwise, I will keep trying to reach you by phone. Sincerely, /cch/ Chase Carmen Hunter APPENDIX P. 000100 Chase Carmen Hunter PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Tel: (707) 706-3647 Fax: (703) 997-5999 Email: ChaseH@ChaseAgency.com June 25, 2013 To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: D-1-GN-13001957 Dear Ms. Daniels: I received a voicemail message from you at 5:26pm EST on June 18, 2013, and at 10:14am EST on June 19, 2013. Your voicemail messages only asked that I call you. You have never communicated with me any reason why you are calling or what you need. You have always stated only that you want me to call you. However, I have called you repeatedly and there is no answer. I have left voicemail messages. I sent you a fax on June 18, 2013, asking you to communicate with me in writing due to this communication problem. I do not understand the very mysterious nature of your communication with me and the fierce effort I must exhaust just to get my petition docketed and to try to understand the mysterious communications from you and Ruben in which you both simply state that you need me to contact you. But each and every time I call either one of you, there is no answer and Ruben has no voicemail. Please, communicate with me the specific reasons why you are calling me by fax. Fax number is 703-997-5999. Sincerely, /cch/ Chase Carmen Hunter APPENDIX P. 000101 <--Chase Hunter--> From: <--Chase Hunter--> Sent: martes, 25 de junio de 2013 01:41 p.m. To: 'Brooke Daniel' Subject: RE: reply to fax Dear Ms. Daniel: Can you provide me with a court order that communicates this decision please? I cannot appeal an email. I need a court order. Can you fax this court order to me and mail the order to me? Fax: 703-997-5999 mail: PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Thank you, Chase Hunter From: Brooke Daniel [mailto:Brooke.Daniel@co.travis.tx.us] Sent: Tuesday, June 25, 2013 1:21 PM To: chaseh@chaseagency.com Subject: reply to fax Ms. Hunter, I am currently at my desk and if you call me now I can help you. I’m sorry if you have had trouble reaching me. You have been sending a fax to the judge’s office, but I work in the district clerk’s office. If you must send a fax to me, please send it to my fax number at (512)854-6627. I was calling to inform you that your Affidavit of Inability to pay costs was not approved. We did not waive the filings fees, however, you were approved for a payment plan. Also, if you would like any citations to be issued, please request them in writing. Also, we do not accept fax filings so you will have to either mail in your letter requesting service, or eFile it if you are not able to file in person. Please be advised that you will be responsible for the citation and constable service fees, and these will be added to your payment plan if you would like to request service. I will be at my desk for rest of the day if you would like to call me with any questions, or feel free to reply to this email. Brooke Daniel 53rd Court Clerk Travis County District Clerk 1000 Guadalupe St., 3rd Floor Austin, Texas 78701 Tel: (512)854-5881 Fax: (512)854-6627 1 APPENDIX P. 000102 Chase Carmen Hunter PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Tel: (707) 706-3647 Fax: (703) 997-5999 Email: ChaseH@ChaseAgency.com June 25, 2013 To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: D-1-GN-13001957 – THIRD FAX FOR JUNE 25, 2013 Dear Ms. Daniels: I received a voicemail message from you on June 25, 2013 at 3:59pm EST. You stated: “I had a couple of things to tell you about your case that I would like to tell you over the phone and not in a message.” As you can see by my petition, I am defending an unconscionable government action and you work for that same government. I am very concerned at how much effort I had to exert just to get my petition docketed. In response to your email which I have attached, the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure do not give you discretion under Rule 145(a) to refuse to docket, issue citations, and provide such other customary services. However, Rule 145(d) allows the clerk to contest the affidavit by filing a written contest. See below. Given that this is the law of Texas, I expect that you will treat me in accordance with the law. As such, you must issue citations and provide such other customary services. RULE 145. AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY (a) Affidavit. In lieu of paying or giving security for costs of an original action, a party who is unable to afford costs must file an affidavit as herein described. A “party who is unable to afford costs” is defined as a person who is presently receiving a governmental entitlement based on indigency or any other person who has no ability to pay costs. Upon the filing of the affidavit, the clerk must docket the action, issue citation and provide such other customary services as are provided any party. (d) Contest. The defendent or the clerk may contest an affidavit that is not accompanied by an IOLTA certificate by filing a written contest giving notice to all parties and, in an appeal under APPENDIX P. 000103 Texas Government Code, Section 28.052, notice to both the small claims court and the county clerk. A party’s affidavit of inability that attests to receipt of government entitlement based on indigency may be contested only with respect to the veracity of the attestation. Temporary hearings will not be continued pending the filing of the contest. If the court finds at the first regular hearing in the course of the action that the party (other than a party receiving a governmental entitlement based on indigency) is able to afford costs, the party must pay the costs of the action. Reasons for such a finding must be contained in an order. Except with leave of court, no further steps in the action will be taken by a party who is found able to afford costs until payment is made. If the party’s action results in monetary award, and the court finds sufficient evidence monetary award to reimburse costs, the party must pay the costs of the action. If the court finds that another party to the suit can pay the costs of the action, the other party must pay the costs of the action. Sincerely, /cch/ Chase Carmen Hunter APPENDIX P. 000104 Chase Carmen Hunter PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Tel: (707) 706-3647 Fax: (703) 997-5999 Email: ChaseH@ChaseAgency.com July 8, 2013 To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: D-1-GN-13001957 Dear Ms. Daniels: I am indigent and unable to afford to pay $14 on idocket.com just to look at the activity for my case. Please, fax me a current activity listing for my case D-1-GN- 13001957 Sincerely, Chase Carmen Hunter APPENDIX P. 000105 Chase Carmen Hunter PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Tel: (707) 706-3647 Fax: (703) 997-5999 Email: ChaseH@ChaseAgency.com July 9, 2013 To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: SECOND REQUEST REGARDING D-1-GN-13001957 Dear Ms. Daniels: I am indigent and unable to afford to pay $14 on idocket.com just to look at the activity for my case. Please, fax me a current activity listing for my case D-1-GN- 13001957. My fax number is 703-997-5999. Sincerely, Chase Carmen Hunter APPENDIX P. 000106 Chase Carmen Hunter PO Box 9075 Fredericksburg, VA 22403 Tel: (707) 706-3647 Fax: (703) 997-5999 Email: ChaseH@ChaseAgency.com July 11, 2013 To: Brook Daniels, Clerk of the 53rd Civil District VIA FACSIMILE: 512-854-9332 RE: THIRD REQUEST REGARDING D-1-GN-13001957 Dear Ms. Daniels: I am indigent and unable to afford to pay $14 on idocket.com just to look at the activity for my case. Please, fax me a current activity listing for my case D-1-GN- 13001957. My fax number is 703-997-5999. Sincerely, Chase Carmen Hunter APPENDIX P. 000107 TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 145. AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY (a) Affidavit. In lieu of paying or giving security for costs of an original action, a party who is unable to afford costs must file an affidavit as herein described. A “party who is unable to afford costs” is defined as a person who is presently receiving a governmental entitlement based on indigency or any other person who has no ability to pay costs. Upon the filing of the affidavit, the clerk must docket the action, issue citation and provide such other customary services as are provided any party. (d) Contest. The defendent [sic] or the clerk may contest an affidavit that is not accompanied by an IOLTA certificate by filing a written contest giving notice to all parties and, in an appeal under Texas Government Code, Section 28.052, notice to both the small claims court and the county clerk. A party’s affidavit of inability that attests to receipt of government entitlement based on indigency may be contested only with respect to the veracity of the attestation. Temporary hearings will not be continued pending the filing of the contest. If the court finds at the first regular hearing in the course of the action that the party (other than a party receiving a governmental entitlement based on indigency) is able to afford costs, the party must pay the costs of the action. Reasons for such a finding must be contained in an order. Except with leave of court, no further steps in the action will be taken by a party who is found able to afford costs until payment is made. If the party’s action results in monetary award, and the court finds sufficient evidence monetary award to reimburse costs, the party must pay the costs of the action. If the court finds that another party to the suit can pay the costs of the action, the other party must pay the costs of the action. APPENDIX P. 000108 APPENDIX P. 000109 APPENDIX P. 000110 APPENDIX P. 000111 APPENDIX P. 000112 APPENDIX P. 000113 APPENDIX P. 000114 APPENDIX P. 000115 APPENDIX P. 000116 APPENDIX P. 000117 APPENDIX P. 000118 APPENDIX P. 000119 .• .. • September 29, 2014 03-14-00641-CV Cause No. D-1-GN-13001957 CHASE CARMEN HUNTER, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF TRAVIS COUNTY, TEXAS Filed in The District Court Plaintiff, of Travis County, Texas v. SEP 26 2014 ~ At f$2{1 f M. Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza, Clerk a. I. ELEANOR KITZMAN etc. et ~e~. Defendants. 250TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT VERIFIED MOTION TO REINSTATE, VERIFIED MOTION TO DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE PLAINTIFF, AND VERIFIED MOTION TO TRANSFER THIS CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS CERTIFICATION. I, Chase Carmen Hunter, state under penalty of perjury that the following facts and argument are true and correct. ~ 9/zzu4- I I STATEMENT OF THE ISSUES. 1. The Plaintiff, Chase Carmen Hunter, ("Hunter") received notice from this Court stating that this Court sua sponte dismissed this lawsuit on August 25, 2014, pursuant to Travis County Texas District Court local rule 8.1 et seq. - 1- APPENDIX P. 000120 . • ' ' 2. Hunter files this Verified Motion to Reinstate pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure ("TRCP") 165a(3). STATEMENT OF FACTS. 3. This lawsuit has not moved forward only because the Clerk of the Travis County Texas District Court, Amalia Rodriguez- Mendoza ("ARM"), has violated Texas laws, federal laws, and j the United States Constitution and has refused to provide l,t' ' Hunter with services she is required by law to provide. 4. ARM has refused, among other things, to perform her ministerial duty in accordance with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure ("TRCP") Rule 145(a). Because Hunter filed an affidavit of indigency, ARM is required to docket, issue citations, and provide such other customary services; but ARM has refused to perform these duties. 5. Hunter filed a motion with Judge Dietz directly on July 11, 2013, titled, "Verified Motion Directly Filed With Judge John K. Dietz For Writ Of Mandamus And Prohibition Directed To The Honorable Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza, Clerk Of The District Court Of Travis County Texas" ("Verified Motion"). This was faxed to Judge Dietz on July 11, 2013, to 512-854-9332. This Verified Motion asked Judge Dietz to direct ARM to perform her ministerial duties pursuant to, inter alia, TRCP 145(a). But Judge Dietz failed to respond to this Verified Motion. -2- APPENDIX P. 000121 .. •, 6. Hunter subsequently filed a petition with the Texas Third District Court of Appeals ("TTDCA"), case 03-13-00468-cv, in which she requested that the TTDCA direct the trial court to perform its ministerial duties and to direct the trial court to direct ARM to perform her ministerial duties. Hunter served Judge Dietz and ARM with copies of this petition. This petition was denied. 7. Hunter subsequently filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Texas ( "SCT") of the TTDCA' s ruling in case 03-13-00468-cv. The SCT case number is 14-0136. Hunter served Judge Dietz and ARM with copies of this appeal. This appeal was denied. 8. Hunter subsequently filed a petition for a writ of certiorari with the Supreme Court of the United States ("SCOTUS") of the SCT ruling in case 14-0136. The SCOTUS case number is 14- 5698. Hunter served Judge Dietz and ARM with copies of this petition for a writ of certiorari. This petition is pending. 9. Hunter filed a lawsuit against ARM and two of her employees in United States District Court ("USDC") case 1:14-cv-00510-LY on about June 2, 2014. Hunter served ARM and the two employees with copies of this lawsuit. This lawsuit seeks relief from, inter alia, ARM's refusal to abide by Texas laws, federal laws, and theUnited Sta;e6nJ. Constitution in Travis County Texas CTCDC) -e District Court v Case D-1-GN-13001957 which is this lawsuit. ca.se .,.~ This USDCvis pending. -3- APPENDIX P. 000122 •, 10. Hunter filed an appeal in the United States Court of Appeals Fifth Circuit ("5th USCA") of actions taken in USDC case 1:14- cv-00510-LY. The 5th USCA case number is 14-50766 and is pending. 11. Hunter filed a petition in the Inter-American Organization of Human Rights in February 2013 and it is petition number P- 1385-13. This petition seeks relief from violations of Hunter's human rights arising from, inter alia, the events described in TCDC case D-1-GN-13001957 which is this lawsuit. This petition is pending. 12. There are at least two additional lawsuits pending in United States District Courts and United States Courts of Appeals that seek relief from, inter alia, the events described in TCDC case D-1-GN-13001957, including ARM's refusal to comply with Texas laws, federal laws, and the United States Constitution. ARGONENT AND PRAYER 13. Pursuant to TRCP 165a(3), Hunter has shown that there is no failure of the plaintiff that resulted in this Court's sua sponte dismissal of this lawsuit pursuant to TCDC local rule 8 .1. Hunter has established that she is not indifferent to prosecuting this lawsuit, that she is actively engaged in prosecuting this lawsuit, that the only reason why this lawsuit has not moved forward is due to ARM's refusal to -4- APPENDIX P. 000123 • ' i ' perform ministerial duties, that the plaintiff has made no mistake, and there has been no accident. 14. Hunter respectfully requests that this Court review this --! matter and (1) grant this motion, (2) direct ARM to provide all customary services provided any other party without charge, (3) enter an order that declares that ARM must provide Hunter with free access to ido'cket. com so that Hunter can view her case progress, or in the alternative, that ARM send Hunter a weekly statement by facsimile that accurately reflects the activity of this lawsuit and of TCDC case D-1-GN-13002576, (4) transfer this cause to the Court of Appeals, Third District Court of Appeals, and (5) award Hunter such further relief to which she may be entitled. VER.IJ!'ICA'l'IOH I, Chase Carmen Hunter, state that the foregoing is true and correct. IN WITNESS, Chase Carmen Hunter has signed this Verification below: (! • M-. _...=.c}A.J._ 1 _~ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ (SEAL) Chase Carmen Hunter , My commission expires: Registration Number: -5- APPENDIX P. 000124 ' 1/1 • Respectfully Submitted, epic Chase Carmen Hunter Plaintiff, pro se 340 S Lemon Ave #9039 Walnut, CA 91789 Tel: 707-706-3647 Fax: 703-997-5999 Email: Chase_Hunter@yahoo.com CER'l'IFICA'l'E OF SERVICE I HEREBY CERTIFY that a true and correct copy of the foregoing VERIFIED MOTION TO REINSTATE, VERIFIED MOTION TO DIRECT THE CLERK OF THIS COURT TO PROVIDE SERVICES TO THE PLAINTIFF, AND VERIFIED MOTION TO TRANSFER THIS CASE TO THE COURT OF APPEALS has been sent as follows: by facsimile to (512) 490-1064 on September 22, 2014, to: Eleanor Kitzman, Julia Rathgeber, and Texas Department Of Insurance Texas Department of Insurance, MC113-2A PO Box 149104 Austin, TX 78714-9104 By facsimile to (512) 477-2348 on September 22, 2014, to: Cynthia A. Morales Assistant Attorney General PO Box 12548 Austin, TX 78711-2548 Chase Carmen Hunter -6- APPENDIX P. 000125 FILE COPY COURT OF APPEALS THIRD DISTRICT OF TEXAS P.O. BOX 12547, AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2547 www.txcourts.gov/3rdcoa.aspx (512) 463-1733 J. WOODFIN JONES, CHIEF JUSTICE JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK DAVID PURYEAR, JUSTICE BOB PEMBERTON, JUSTICE JEFF L. ROSE, JUSTICE MELISSA GOODWIN, JUSTICE SCOTT K. FIELD, JUSTICE November 24, 2014 Ms. Chase Carmen Hunter Ms. Cynthia A. Morales 340 S. Lemon Ave. #9039 Assistant Attorney General Walnut, CA 91789 Financial Litigation, Tax, and Charitable Trusts * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * Division P. O. Box 12548 (MC 017-6) Austin, TX 78711 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL * RE: Court of Appeals Number: 03-14-00737-CV Trial Court Case Number: D-1-GN-13-001957 Style: Chase Carmen Hunter v. Eleanor Kitzman, Julia Rathgeber, and Texas Department of Insurance Dear Counsel and Ms. Hunter: The Court has been advised that appellant has given notice of appeal. The cause in this Court will bear the number and style shown above. Appellant is requested to forward the $195.00 filing fee and a docketing statement to this Court on or before December 04, 2014. See Tex. R. App. P. 5, 32.1. If appellant has not already done so, he must make a written request to the clerk and the court reporter and make arrangements for payment of the record within ten days of the receipt of this notice. See Tex. R. App. P. 34.6(b)(1). Very truly yours, JEFFREY D. KYLE, CLERK BY: Courtland Crocker Courtland Crocker, Deputy Clerk cc: The Honorable Amalia Rodriguez-Mendoza APPENDIX P. 000126 From: US_Postal_Service@usps.com Sent: Thursday, June 6, 2013 11:34 AM To: chase_hunter@yahoo.com Subject: USPS Shipment Info for 9505500001113155000188 This is a post-only message. Please do not respond. CHASE hunter has requested that you receive a Track & Confirm update, as shown below. Track & Confirm e-mail update information provided by the U.S. Postal Service. Label Number: 9505500001113155000188 ™ Service Type: USPS Tracking Shipment Activity Location Date & Time ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Out for Delivery AUSTIN, TX 78701 June 6, 2013 10:05 am Sorting Complete AUSTIN, TX 78701 June 6, 2013 9:55 am Arrival at Post Office AUSTIN, TX 78701 June 6, 2013 8:30 am Depart USPS Sort Facility AUSTIN, TX 78710 June 6, 2013 Processed through USPS Sort Facility AUSTIN, TX 78710 June 6, 2013 1:17 am Depart USPS Sort Facility SANDSTON, VA 23150 June 5, 2013 Processed at USPS Origin Sort Facility SANDSTON, VA 23150 June 4, 2013 11:06 pm Acceptance (APC) STAFFORD, VA 22554 June 4, 2013 4:01 pm Reminder: Track & Confirm by email Date of email request: June 5, 2013 Future activity will continue to be emailed for up to 2 weeks from the Date of Request shown above. If you need to initiate the Track & Confirm by email process again at the end of the 2 weeks, please do so at the USPS Track & Confirm web site at http://www.usps.com/shipping/trackandconfirm.htm 1 APPENDIX P. 000127 PAGE 7 APPENDIX P. 000128