4TH COA NO.04-15-00012-CV
Trial NO.2005-CI-18884 -/za-
JOHN E. RODARTE SR. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
Affiant,Appellant ,
Movant,In Propia Persona
VS FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS
BEXAR COUNTY,TEXAS,SHERIFF
RALPH LOPEZ,ET AL
Appellees SAN ANTONIO,TEXAS
RESPONSE TO FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS ORDER ,.
MOTION TO WAIVE CHAP.14 DOCUMENTATION /"
REQUIREMENTS,UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH
FULL DOCUMENTATION,THAT CAN BE PROVIDED J ■
BY CLERKS OF THE RESPECTIVE COURTS
QUESTION OF LAW
To The Honorable Court And Justices:
i fe
Now comes John E. Rodarte Sr-,in the above styled and numbered
cause of action. On this date of March 04,2015 completes this,his
document,and will show the following:
It is appellant's belief,that correct appeals brief has been
submitted to this court for the above civil action. Appellant,
maintains another civil action:John E. Rodarte Sr. Vs. TDFPS,cause
number 2010-CI-12625,4TH COA 8 04-14-00922-CV,which would concern
the very same provisions set forth with this court's own orders
that appellant Rodarte Sr.,provide Civ.Prac-and Reni-Chap-14 doc
umentation of other indignet court filinga and court act ions.
Therefore,appellant Rodarte Sr.,requests,for the suspension of
filing requirements for Appeal No.04-14-00922-CV as due by this
court by March 16th,2015 for Appeal No.04-15-00012-CV and March 23,
2015 for Appeal No.04-14-00922-CV,being that the very identical
requirements have been set forth by this court in both respective
appeals- Thus,such pleading requirements,are motioned by appellant
that they be waived/pursuant to T.R-A-P- Rule 2.
Appellant Rodarte Sr.,respect fully asks for leave of court,to allow
him to proceed in the best possible manner and fashion,that appellant
has come accustomed to,in that,appellant's pleadings,should be clear
and understandable. This is said as well,due to the fact that the
law library here at the Clements Unit,fails the parameters set by
The Access To Courts'rules and denies the appellant the necessary
legal material,to maintain a legal level playing field against the
appellees,who are afforded all of the legal material and legal assist
ance,that the appellant does not have the luxury that the appellees
have at their disposal. This is violative of due process and equal
protection of the laws,guaranteed by the 14th Amendment.
1.
Once again for clarity purposes,appellant Rodarte Sr.,wishes,that
the application of the information provided herein,be applied as
well to the other appeal of John E. Rodarte Sr. Vs. Texas Department
Of Family And Protective Services,Appeal No -04-14-00922-CV.
It is also requested by appellant Rodarte Sr-,that the honorable
4TH COA, order its clerk,to obtain verification of the cases filed
by appellant,from the U-S- District Court,U-S- Court Of Appeals,For
The 5TH Circuit in Louisiana,U.S- Bankruptcy Court,both U.S. Courts
are located in San Antonio,Texas(Dist.Ct.& Bankruptcy Ct.),Bexar
County District Clerk,Donna Kay McKinney,Travis County,Texas Dist
rict Clerk,Third Court Of Appeals in Austin,Texas -
While there are two cause numbers that appellant may not be able
to provide this court with,the following cases are as follows:
U.S. District Court in San Antonio,Texas SA-14-CA-100-DAE which was
transferred from U.S. District Court in Austin,Texas,to which garnish
ment of Rodarte's Inmate Trust Fund Account was ordered,and still
being paid on,a balance of $ 270 - 00;there was a case filed in 2003 or
2004 in U.S. Dist.Ct-in San Antonio,Texas;5:07-cv-988-XR; SA-13-CA-1126;
for a total of four U.S. Dist-Ct - cases,al1 in San An tonio,except for
the one in Austin. The Austin case number is A-13-CV-1093-LY.
Next,the 5TH Circuit Ct- cases:14-50268 and 08-51253 for payment was
made in full. The U.S. Dist-Ct-case above,is correctly stated now as
5:07-cv-00988-XR~PMA. Appellant.wishes to inform the court,that the
following case numbers,were not manufactured out of thin air.
Potter County Dist.Clerk,for cause number,to which appellant is a
party to and representative thereof,Mo.98395-E or 098395-00E or
098395-E;Austin,Texas Dist-Clerk cause numbers are: D-1-GN-13-O01125
dismissed in part,renumbered in part,to .excuse me,severed to number
D-l-GN-13-003246 to the 345th Ct. from the 98th Ct.
Third Court Of Appeals in Austin,Texas is 03-13-00705-CV. I believe
the Judge Mary Roman portion,was the part that was severed,it may
very well be,that the portion against CPS may very well be active,
awaiting dismissal docket,hence the ruling for continued right to
litigate the case,due to the provisions set forth under Texas law
afforded by the Discovery Rule,as this court has been apprised of.
Therefore,it may very well under a question of law,become,should
it become necessary,that intervention be motioned for,by the Texas
Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court-
2-
The Austin civil case,00346 case*may have been dismissed by the
operation of law provisions,yet,it must be questioned under the
prinicples of being placed on the dismissal docket, to which,appell
ant has never received notice of-
The next cases,are out of San Antonio,Texas,should be residing at
the Bexar County District Clerk's Office under the followinq: 2003-
CR-2907; 2003-CR-6651 ; 2O1O-CI-14597 Beneficial Texas Inc.Vs. Rachel
A. Rodarte John E. Rodarte Sr-,2010-CI-03698 John E. Rodarte Sr.Vs-
Rosanna J. Patterson; John E. Rodarte Sr. Vs. The State Of Texas et
al,2011-CI-03434;2010 -CI-12625;2005-CI-18884 John E. Rodarte Sr. Vs.
Bexar County,Texas,Sheriff Ralph Lopez,et al;2O1O-CI-12625 Rodarte Sr.
Vs.Texas Department Of Family And Protective Services.
The following cases,are/can be found at the 4TH COA in San Antonio,
Texas. The following cases are: 04-04-00154-CV for a writ of mandamus
to which,in all reality,should have qranted the proper relief,but it
was overlooked;04-04-00673-CR a criminal appeal,to which,was not
argued as per Robinson Vs. State,16 S.W.3rd-808 and the favorable
Brady evidence found in the 1995 CPS file;04-10-00880-CV; 04-12-00211-
CV;04-14-00681-CV;04-14-00922-CV;and 04-15-00012-CV and a hot check
case against me,that should have been appealed,due to denial of my
request for a iury trial and request for a handwritinq expert,plus
all hot checks written,were written while I was detained at the Cq^c-f*
Bexar County Adult Detention Center, but who v;oulc ]. is ten to me,all /'3tf/C
HC-otlK Co.
that had to be done was compare the dates on the checks and my de-
tainment on April 17,2003 to October 29,2004,should suffice,that I
was wrongfully charqed and illeqally misrepresented by counsel-
One last issue,is cause no.14-0388 in the Texas Supreme Court. It
has to arqued under questions of law,is it customary,for the courts
to misapply constitutional laws,statutes,codes,etc? Under a question
of law,when a case has been set for "| ury trial,can such a case,qo
against a -judqe's court order, placing a case on the iurv docket,and
hearinq motions to dismiss,thus qoinq aqainst a iudqe's order?
This is further made argueable,in that,while a case has been placed
on the jury docket,to which this has been done twice,deny a constit
utional riyht to a trial by iury,especially when the cases exhibiting
favorable decisions in the appellate courts and Texas Supreme Ct-,in
that certain issues,concerninq notice,and failing to give notice,are
issues that must be resolved by a "jury.
3.
Appellant Rodarte £r. ,believes that he has provided sufficient
cause numbers for the honorable 4TH COA,to show that appellant has
complied with documentation of his filings in other courts in this
documentation or document. This is offered pursuant to Government
Code,311.Oil(a),should satisfy this court's application of docu
mentation ' .
In the case that the word and application of documentation,does
for some reason not satisfy this court,then,blame must be placed
where blame must be placed. Appellant,due to not wantinq to divulge
hi;; hard copies that contain evidence of the court cases listed
above,then let the blame fall where it should. It may appear that
the clerk of this court,will not obtain verification of the cases
listed,therefore,make it possible for this court to dismiss for
non-compliance by the appellant,even thouqh appellant has provided
the court with the necessary cause numbers,that should satisfy the
requirements of evidence,only too easy to dismiss appellant's claims.
This is further evident,due to this prison's unit law library staff
concerning indigent supplies- It seems that the indiqent supply staff
are retaliate against appellant for filinq qrievances aqainst certain
officers,by allowing appellant only three business envelopes,when he
always requests five envelopes.
What this does is,stall the appellant's attempt in submittinq to
the other clerks of the courts,notice and request for hard copy doc
umentation, in order to fully provide this court with'documentation'
and more evidene,that appellant is tryinq the best he can do,only
if the circumstances were more readily available without interference.
It! is quite evident, that appellant had to submit the listed filings
its ;just that,had not an illegal "judgement of conviction been imposed
upon hinwappellant's 'outside interests'would not have had to become
subi ■ icted to the necessity of a court forum -
This next passaqe,is not intended to point finqers or lay blame,
but if it should feel this way,then this must be the case. Appellant
will beqin with the newly appointed D-A. Mr- Lahood. Now,if appellant
is incorrect,then appellant will offer his sincerest apoloqy to Mr. Lahood. There
was a law firm,that employed an attorney by the name of Lahood,I have
no information to ensure that,that Mr- Lahood is the same person as
the D.A. Anyway,the appellant had hired a Mr. Bias Delqado,to rep
resent appellant in a divorce,to which such shoddy representation
caused appellant to fall suspect to too many questionable issues,
that ^ould include now. 4.
U thia shoddines and questionable handling of appellants
legal proceedings,that can only offer one explanation,that the
evidence of said poor worksmanship,is ju.t too great,and appellant
Rodarte Sr.,has had to take the brunt of such poor professional "
performance all by himself. This goes on to include the very same
courts as a whole,who qo to extren.es to defend such shoddy profess
ionals. Once again,the proof is evident,its in the records.
Appellant,does not know why Mr. Lahood dismissed a number of
Assistant D-A.'s,and appellant does not know if Crystal Chandler
and Earnest MoClure are one or two of the attorneys dismissed,the
appellant,would like to know the reasons why such dismissals took
place-
When the case sites,whether Texas Southwestern Reporter,Federal
Reporter,Supreme Court Reporter,as they are written,show within
said paqes of the above referenced books,show that causes,as filed
by appellant,including now,that should qarner reinstatement of the
two current cases under appeal,only because of the questionable
dismissals,would not have to be subieoted to appeal,had said cases
been held properly before a -jury and proper law applied,by those
who are in the know and licensed in this state,should have never
had allowed such misapplications to qo as far as they have,yet here
we are-
Under a question of law,beinq that a case,being placed on the jury
docket,cannot be remove from the docket,any and all questions,must
be submitted to the jury,not another bench trial or hearings- The
iudqes and attorneys know this,not without agreement from the app
ellant,this was done twice in appellant's iniury case,to which for
sonie reason,the clerks keep leaving out the defendant Bexar County
from the title of cause 2005-CI-18884 and only stating Sheriff Ralph
Lopez,et al.
When appellant,had to underqo beinq subjected to a criminal case
a case to which this submission does not pertain to,yet was impro
perly addressed in this court,as then,Mr.Langlois should have done
the same for this appellant,as he did in the case of Robinson Vs.
State,16 S.W.3rd-S08 in light of the litigated 1995 CPS file,a
file that should have made it to appellant's criminal trial,to
which this submission to this court now has before it,shows that
appellant did not harm his children,and shows that the state along
with the agency CPS,denied appellant's sons the lawful constitutional
protections,and was concealed. 5.
As the denial to favorable Brady Material,such as the 1995 CPS
fi|Le and the 1995 divorce f i le, 1995-CI-05393 would have shown in
appellant's criminal trial,is that under Texas law,once an issue
has been litigated concerninq the very same issues and claims as
in the previous proceedinq,whether civil or criminal.cannot be lit
igated aqainst the same parties aqain,wether in privity,or throuqh
the statefD.A.),usinq the same person in the previous proceedinq,
that resulted by a final iudqement in a competent court.
It is the response by Judqe Mary Roman,that since the D.A. did not
hav|e such 1995 evidence in its possession, i t did not violate Brady-
As it has been articulated in Auters Vs.US,632 F.2nd.478 alonq with
Brady Vs .Maryland , 83 S . Ct. 1189 , McCoy Vs. Hernandez , 203 F-3rd..>61,
Garcia Vs.State,308 S.W.3rd.62,qoes to show that the officers of the
state grossly failed to investiqate,and certain officers of the state
either overlooked or looked the other way when said issues were clear
and a ministerial duty,should have cauqht someone's eye,yet the qross
overlookinq was the easier road to take-
So does all of this have to do with anything,other than why this
is havinq to be plead to this court? Plenty,aqain,it is the overlook
inq of important matters that are of great concern,not iust tc the
appellant,but to his sons iust as well and equally.
What happened to appellant,it can be said iust the same for his
sons,John Jr.and Hawke,due to the fact,that such 'shoddiness of pro
fessionalism by the officers of the State,denied appellant his riqht
to go home,have his children removed from where they were court ordered
to a,tay,in an abusive home, that CPS should have done the riqht thing,
but alas,it was easier to do the wronq thing and conceal it. This
issue of concealment,has already been brought to the attention of this
court,now appellant is waitinq for this court to do the riqht thinq,
and must be questioned,if this court will even do the riqht thinq,
I
and allow for reinstatement of the cases plead to,simply because,the
allowance of such a lonq period of time,without any corrective mea
sures, until now,would allow a wronq to continue without any recourse
or findinq responsible the riqhtful parties,iust because they are
offi ers of the State,and hide and conceal themselves under the cloak
of vereiqn immunity and not be held liable.
6.
Under a question of law,under the equal protection of the law
clause of the 14th Amendment,is it quite possible to the extent,
that appellant would have been able to pay the costs and fees to
at least some extent,had appellant been in his liberty?
It would appear,that the officers of the State and court,are
subiectinq the appellant,to 'iumpinq throuqh hoops' iust so appellant
will either qet tired of so much paper pushinq,or iust so the court
will have an excuse,in which to dismiss the cases,iust because there
is a law,a statute , under Civ.Prac.and Rein . Chap . 14 , which , wi thout ever
havjinq meritful litiqation ever reach a courtroom, iust because such
litiqation has been labeled inmate litiqation,and the excuse is that
an inmate is filing any kind of lawsuit iust because the court 'thinks'
such litiqation is frivolous,thus qivinq meritful cases,usually that
concern litiqation aqainst the State or its officials,easy to dismiss
thus,under a question of law,is said statute,Chap - 14 unconstitutional?
Because it denies a person,iust because he or she is labeled an in
mate? Does this further,under a question of law,deserve further scru
tiny,as discrimination by beinq an inmate? Does this fall under the
1prpfilinq'due to race or qender,iust because a person is an inmate?
Therefore,does this violate a person's Bill Of Riqhts1 iust because
they are incarcerated? Does such litiqation and application of Chap.
14,(3eny or violate a person's riqht to equal protection of the laws?
Just because a person is indiqent?
This is iust too much,to be able to deny a case,iust because it
fall under a statute,and will never allow a case to have its day in
court before a iury as afforded by law Texas or U.S. or otherwise.
Such,would implicate,that there are other U.S. Constitutional denials
at play iust as well.
This issue of Brady material,qoes on to include evaluations by a
Carol Albert there in San Antonio,that,is evidence that should have
made to appellant's criminal trial and did not. It is therefore now
beinq requested,for the proper furtherance of the case aqainst CPS
and show willful witholdinq and concealment of evidence,that the
appellant did not harm his sons,that appellant's sons were beinq
abused physically and sexually by someone other than the appellant
that the State did nothinq about it when it concerned appellant's
son;
,or the appellant,to show favorable evidence,qo home and love
his children as the 14th Amendment protects the parent-child relation-
shit/something that,it would appear the officers involved in
matter have no worldly idea. 7. Respectftjri^y]Submitted
CONCLUSION
Appellant Rodarte Sr-,only wishes that the law be applied faithfully
in correctinq some qross injustices done aqainst his family, and to
appellant. These are concerns,that cannot be left to a iudqe anymore,
let the true triers of fact,be the iudqes here on lawsuits aqainst
those,that are thouqht to protect and serve the community and do not.
That those that protect and serve/do not protect and serve the comm
unity,but only serve themselves,otherwise,why are there Housebills
beinq passed,that raise an issue of third party interests,especially
a iudqe? These interests,do not only apply to iust a iudqe,but to all
of those persons who are a part of the iudqe,arm extensions of the
State,who must be held accountable always for their actions,iust like
anyone else -
Appellant asks,that due to the constraints placed upon him by the law
library,by not issuinq sufficient envelopes,in which to send notice
and requests to clerks of other courts,it is asked of this court and
Mr.Nicolas A. Lahood,that it allow appellant to satisfy this court's
requirement for hard copy documentation.
It is further requested by appellant,of Mr.Lahood,to serve copy of
this! document to Mr- Clarkson F- Brown,A.D.A- for Bexar County,and
Jason T. Contreras,Assistant Attorney General- Appellant did not
make these problems to impose them upon the defendants or their
counsel,all that is asked,that the records be reviewed with a fine
toothed comb,with an undivided application of the law as the evidence
presents itself. That the divorce documents be brouqht before this
court,the evaluations done by Carol Albert,the 1995 CPS investiqation
that a jury may be better suited for their evaluation,not a iudqe or
panel of iudqes,too much room for a biased iudqement,even thouqh
the |law shows that this will not be the case, experirence, corruption,
other interests,concealment,biases,inteqrity of the court,can only
be maintained throuqh a iury trial,court's upto this point when it
comes to the children of appellant and the appellant, said court's
have been severely compromised,there is no trust in such a system.
Appellant,has sufficiently provided Dist.Clk.necessary incHqent info
for an appellate record. This court is iust lookinq for/ny avenue
in which to dismiss leqitimate cases aqainst Sinos
its ovn constituents
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
This is to certify,that a true and correct copy of this foreqoinc;
docunent,has been forwarded to Mr. Nicolas A. Lahood,District Attorney
For 3exar County,Texas 101 West Nueva St.,Suite 370 San Antonio,Texas
78205 by first class mail-
ecuted On This March 04,2015 Resp ly Done,
J.R./i.r.
03/04/2015
O moo a <=»
tr1
T Cj
Q > O C
> H
r1 r-
H-
■"
.D
3
>
M
(C
o
11
■
01
a
■
o
o c
C"
n
o
r
0 o O
■-ft c
o C"
en r-.
0) r
O
n
m
01 •D
d T3
■ i
fD
I 0J
o O
O