fl5'L 2 La Salet+e-
\-\-D\kbnY'- ' \X' f1f102_J
;0URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS
ocr 23 201s
Abet Acosta, Clevk
?m?he+ RcV\0\LJ
_D~~~ w~~~eLer
This document contains some
pages that are of poor qualit}j .
a~~ thtt time oilmeJf3)11i"i~.
/ ~~!M1Pi;t
'· ~~trict of.Te.Jii!S·;
-1
? . II
W 0 k_ L D
I G 01'0u I1Z \ \-\f \ ~~~·r
· o \-
~:7JM:t/l
..,., c L.. / "I o
T
' ~ ~E\Zt<\f\\\o""'JtL Cou\Z- T or ~ftiltc~·~ 'j
G-v v 'c: '?-- "-' " " 12 (\_ \ ' o r-
1\'\f: S\~~
.
or- h_~f\'cR\Cf\
I
0 f- ,~ \ c t:: s ? ~ E-:s \0 E ~ \ T ,. g A?, '•"~ t l" 0 g
0 \-
gd 'C\ c ·\~ ob-a.rnd! v, (.t ~r ts \ oE~\'
--:5' o. <2- · '0\ de 11 ;. C0~1 6-K c-SS - t+vvSE ~ ,
If\. "TTTI\ "-'~I &8,.(,T
Sf ~1\L\··TE y S W ~ R~\'<\ ~ Co u \Z_ I J "~E 'Xf-1-S
(5()"1 E K t\..1\C 1'--t T/ 0 F F t c c 0 P G-o \FeR 1Vcf(i.1
A \ {D~ W't: -~ b-E~~~~'t\L I C ou~T 0 f--·
'c R VV\ l r "- ( Su r~~M~ Co UK\ I
f\RS~,N ~-dv{CT
OF APPEAL
01- ~.oo,-~c
l Y J \ L.-->
'\. C
AT \~vSlDYL
1ST cOU~~N TEXAS
~;; 2 ~ ioi5 TtY4$ 1
A pRINE -:1 ;/"\ \
CtiRISIOPtiER . 0 I .I C
-r~ ft r l33 RD ( l 'l.L{T t-1/ (w 5" I HI 333 RD/
""'' D 3 3 71 II JU !)I c ;14(__ 0~'5TK rc I ( out2 r·
(J F· . /f7:11l t2 r.Y Ct?ZJAir/ .
:JU;? IJ 0 reT! or/ a F
C~l WtJKL-tJ
-t-he-- J.a >') --n-v · .
. fl7 y
/Jl_t?mdYt ~/1 ~~5 J (/Yc]c/td7!Vj /iJ
~ -~ Svi:;_;-·ee~ J11q//ev /5 Va5v~/ bvf
. .
1/_ /J· a
dJ;Pv/--e-/ !Ju-m8n:5 r/:YIJ--1-5
vhe;er}? ~e ~~~ '7' -/-h.£
:;;;_~,;{{::f.e/_ ;t??kesES / T5 Pe?tJ;;le
. -···-,......... . ...... --
j_ 1\j \ \-\ E.
r~ {:\LS ~o(. \\\E
' i ~\ \ -rE.D SIA\ES CDu\Z.l" O\- ~ '£
Ul'\l FIFTH CJ!ZCU\l.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION
f\J'-\ V \AJ oR LD LOUR. 1 fnR I .
RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD, § -~
TDCJ-CID NO. 623968, §
§
Petitioner, §.
VS. § CTVIL ACTION NO. H-94-2767 g
§ H-15-01.351-C\i
WARDEN GARY JOHNSON, §
' §
ND11c..~espo~nt. A.~rEAL t\~\ D C0tv)9L~t~T r=oR. JuD\C\AL Mts-
C..O~OUC..T 0~ ORDER \...\.S. \))~\Z\LT 3"\Ju&E MEL11JDA
HAKMON/ TDG-ETHEK \f,._\ \T\-\ f\\\f\U\f.JS ru\T\Dt\.\ t\N\) l r ~
This pro se petitioner has been barred from filing any notice of appyals, motions, or other
pleadings. (Docket Entry No. 124). Therefore, his "Motion for Rehearing of Final Judgment,"
"Motion for Leave to File Documents," and "Motion to Reopen All 'Closed' Cases" (Docket
Entry Nos. 127, 129, and 130) are DENIED. Furthermore, the Court ORDERS these motions
1 (Docket Entry Nos. 127, 129, and 130) STRICKEN from the record.
The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties.
SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 14th day of October, 2015.
MELINDA HARMON
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
\ll 0LATloN5 DF \-\uMJ\t---l \\\&-\-r\~ Of Tf\E.
t\M GfZ \CA -~\ ?E C> \'L t:
lAJl+ost: L£G-A L S ~STEtf\ \
H ••. COf\Ku9T s
lj E~ 0 ND f\ E C.JXJ- ~ \'T \ DI\.L " f\ cCofZD 1\'.1 b- Pr LS t) 'To
L\.S. C..I"KC\..J1T ._jLJD&E E\DTt1 J.DlJES 0\-Tt\t:
111 r\
r-T~ C\KC:.\.HT u.S .Cou~ Of ~ Pft::{\L S
"court of appeals of the united states"
in the ~h circuit
f-; Ptk
UNITED STATES OFAlvfE!llCA
.~in tiff/Appellee .Case 12-1320
vs See A-)\
.DeBBj' Ray: Hardin cc\s-e Nos .
All rights reserved UCC 1-308
Appellant E-el oW
"One supreme Court"
Art.icl.e 3,
DEMAND FOR DETERMINATION OF VOID JUDGMENT
L-ast- y>ll)Phe...t \Zon~u1 Dw'Cltt'\~ w~·~tv:dd;
COMES NOW Demy=Rley _ 'Mardin, sui juris; to demand determination of "void
~n~ ~~
judgme ' that was filed in the district courtjn Feef't!M)i lOth, 2012 and was submitted to
.
7
the court of appeals as ~Khihit 4 with the "Notice of Appeal"_
COURT HAS NO DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO VACATE A VOID
JUDGMENT Export v. Reef, 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995) held:
"We review de novo, however, a district court's ruling upon a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set
aside a judgment as void, because the question of the validity of a judgment is a legal
one. Retail Clerks Union Joint Pemion Trust v. Freedom Food Center, Inc. 938 F.2d 136,
137 (9th Cir. 1991)." (end quote Export Group v. Reejlnd.)
Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (lOth Cir. 1994) held that "when the role providing
for relief from a void judgment is applicable, relief is not discretionary, but is
mandatory."
Jaffe v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) held: "Judgments entered where
courts lack either subject matter jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation
of due process oflaw, must be set aside."
(end quote Jaffe)
"without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities.
They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery
1
sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no
justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or·
sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. "
[Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 US. 328, 340 (1828)]
"A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering
State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v.
Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-733 (1878).",[World-Wide Volkwagen Corp. v.
Woodso~ 444 U.S. 286 (1980)]
Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of
which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time ·
and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life
Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its
inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal
efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and
effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or
enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void
judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the
subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due
process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. See also
Voidable judgment. [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574]
B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank and Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla App. Div. 3,
1995) held:"Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four comers of
that role, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was
absent:jurisdiction over the partiesjurisdiction over the subject matter, or jurisdictional
power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered."( end quote B & C
Investments).
A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks
jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power
to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be
attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided
that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank
Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 lll. 1999)
A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues
to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties
or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable
of enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Loyd v. Director, Dept. of
Public Safety, 480 So.2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985). A judgment shown by
evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction is a void judgment or at all
2
events has all attributes of a void judgment, City of Los Angeles v.
Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951).
Void judgment which is subject to collateral attack, is simulated judgment
devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects, Ward. v. Terriere,
386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963). A void judgment is a simulated judgment
devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court
rendering it and defect of-jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the
subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief
to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330
P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629
(Colo. 1958).
Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or
subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular
order involved and such a judgment may be attacked ~t any time, either
directly or collaterally, People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (Ill. 1987).
Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction, or acted in manner
inconsistent with due process of law Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741
(Ill. App.Dist. 1993).
Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or
subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular
order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly
or collaterally People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990).
Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is
one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal
effect, Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E.2d 392 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 1982).
Void judgment is one which, from its inception is complete nullity and
without legal effect In reMarriage of Parks, 630 N.E.2d 509 (Ill.App. 5
Dist. 1994).
Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to
make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any
time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity.
People v. Rolland, 581 N.E.2d 907 (Ill.APp. 4 Dist. 1991).
Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked
subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties or acted
in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted
3
unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, Hays
v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 N.E.2d 1383 (lli App. 5 Dist. 1983).
A void judgment has no effect whatsoever and is incapable of
confirmation or ratification, Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N.E.2d 1114,
rehearing denied, and transfer denied (Ind. App. 1 Dist. 1993).
Relief from void judgment is available when trial court lacked either _
personal or subject matter jurisdiction, Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625
N.E.2d 458 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1993).
A void judgment is one rendered by a court which lacked personal or
subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due
process, In re. Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan.App. 1999).
A void judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some
essential element, as when court purporting to render it has no jurisdiction,
Mills v. Richardson, 81S.E.2d 409 (N.C. 1954).
A void judgment is one which has a mere semblance, but is lacking in
some of the essential elements which would authorize the court to proceed
to judgment, Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E.2d 227, (N.C. 1950).
Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction to enter such
judgment, State v. Blankenship, 675 N.E.2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9 Dist.
1996).
Where condition of bail bond was that defendant would appear at present
term of court, judgment forfeiting bond for defendant's bail to appear at
subsequent term was a void judgment within rule that laches does not run
against a void judgment, Com. V. Miller, 150 A.2d 585 (PaSuper. 1959).
Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an
absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights
are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked
directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is
interposed, City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.X.2d 141 (Twx.Civ.App.-
Beaumone 1973).
A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an
absolute nullity, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App.-
Waco 1951).
4
A void judgment is one that has bee procured by extrinsic or collateral
fraud, or entered by court that did not have jurisdiction over subject matter
or the parties, Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756 (Va. 1987).
A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking
jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent
power to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was
procured by fraud, In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Til. APp. 1
Dist. 2000).
Void judgments generally fall into two classifications, that is, judgmentS
where there is want of jurisdiction of person or subject matter, and
judgments procured through fraud. and such judgments may be attacked
directly or collaterially, Irving v. Rodriquez, 169 N.E.2d 145, (ill. app. 2
Dis. 1960).
When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is
not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d
1307 (Colo. 1994).
Judgments entered where court lacked either. subject matter or personal
jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of
law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.l994, 158
F.RD.278.
A "void" judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to
actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral
attack (thus here, by). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its
holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and
years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been
regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and
once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication
had never been. Fritts v. Krugh. Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d
604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58).
Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked
jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner
inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc.• Rule 60(b)(4). 28
U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892
(D.S.C. 1985).
5
10121/2015 The Secret is rrostjudgmenls are Void on their face and not merely\Oidable
What are ...
The 4 Secrets of the Legal Industry?
Most judgments are not merely voidable, but are in fact VOID
JUDGMENTS. They can be vacated; made to go away (Although, it is an
up hill battle, much like pushing a rope). Rarely has any authenticated
evidence, competent fact witness, or even a claim been put before a court
and on the record.
Defective affidavits, hearsay as evidence and no stated damages are but a
few elements that rob the court of subject matter jurisdiction (at last count
.there are 22 elements that deprive the court of SMJ). Some of the elements
are: denial of due process, denial of meaningful access to court, fraud upon
the court, and fraud upon the court by the court.
(Although these pages are aimed primarily towards debt, credit card debt,
the principals set forth herein ~pply to virtually all civil and criminal
cases. Our system ofjustice is based upon "who says" & ''prove it," if
either one of those two elements is missing, there is no jurisdiction, there
is no case.)
Common pleas such as "open accomit" or "account stated" are often used in
place of, and sometimes in conjunction with, breach of contract. To ftle
under breach a contract would require that they bring in. the signed contract,
agreement, or note. They don't bring in a contract, they bring in the "terms
of agreement" which has no signature or persons name on it, a template that
could apply to anyone.
These are just some of the tools used by debt collectors (credit card debt
collectors in particular) and their counsel to perpetrate a fraud upon the
court, with or without the courts cooperation or complicity.
At the same time, courts, almost as a rule, openly display a bitter and
venomous hatred of pro se I pro per litigants. So don't expect the courts to
just roll over and give you what you demand without a battle. It doesn't
matter to them that you are right, it matters. only that you are pro se; an
inferior, low life being, and the courts have a position and the income of their
1-...-.n.l-ho..-h.n..n.A 1-.n. ...,.,..,.,..,.,,..., TJ.;.,. oHrl-..Ao hTT 1-ho r>.n.prl<' o..-.A llo..- oni-J.,._...;.,.,,.t
10121/2015 The Secret is roost judgments are Void on their face ard not merelylddable
attorneys tends to support the position expressed by Bill Bauer from
CreditWrench.com: "There's more value in being a pain in the arse than in
being right."
These are the four secrets:
1. Courts of generaL limited, or inferior jurisdiction have no inherent judicial
power.*
• Courts of generaL limited, or inferior jurisdiction get their jurisdiction
from one source and one source only: SUFFICIENT PLEADINGS.
• Someone before the court must tell the court what its jurisdiction is.
• Without pleadings sufficient to empower the court to act, that court
cannot have judicial capacity.
• No judge has the power to determine whether he has jurisdiction. He
does have the duty to tell when he does not .
. . . .What this means to you is that no court can declare that it has the legal
power to hear or decide cases, i.e. jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must be proved
and on the record. Without sufficient pleadings, without jurisdiction, no court
can issue a judgment that isn't void ab initio, void from the beginning, void
on its face, a nullity, without force and effect.
2. We have a common law system.
• No statute, no rule, or no law means what it says as it is written.
• Only the holding tells you what it means.
• The statute means what the highest court of competent jurisdiction has
ruled and determined that the statute means in their most recent ruling.
. . . . What this means to you is that courts are .governed/ruled by case law,
what has been determined before, what the highest court of competent .
jurisdiction has said the law is, means. It is called the Doctrine of Precedent.
This doctrine is so powerful that it can kill and has. A family in Florida has
become quite familiar with this doctrine when they tried for 15 years to
prevent feeding tubes from being removed from their daughter who was in a
vegetative state.
3. Attorneys CANNOT testify.
• Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are never facts before the
court.
. . . .What this means to you is that no attorney can state a fact before. the
10121/2015 The Secret is rmstjtxigmenls are Void on their face and not rrerely\Oidable
Summary
WHAT'S IN THE NEWS
Note worthy comt actions and
actions within the debt collection industry.
Interested in knowing more?
Join our mailing li all_state
GoverW~l ~~[~~~~U~~ ~~$£rW~l:l5,~t
Court Judges, 0AtttCHW~ ,a~rrdrDrfttict Clerk
' .. " .. - ·-·------.-- ·-·
··- ·-.. - . .
BACKGROUND Teacher at Councellor/Advocate/Comforter
* 0 fqllow~rs.(/usEl(s/pJ~ORbet-ron§ld-whitfield/follo~r~h·l
I Follow 1· mau.y_simen~rrom.me_anu_Lcannot.tlmsnJ:
Reader, my carttaday_was11 l!S now.
Therefore, count from this page and begin reading on page 25 to the end and then
resume here on this page.
JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AND JUDGE BAKER,
MY CAR WAS STOLEN TODAY;! NOW MOVE TODAY FOR WHAT YOU CALL AS
AN "EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT HEARING" AND ALSO
YOU CAUSE THIS MATTER BE FORWARDED TO THE HARRIS COUNTY
DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION FOR
THEFT OF VEHICLE PENDING IN THIS COURT, AGAINST BOTH BIG STAR
HONDA AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS MATTER;
httos://casetext.corn/users/nronhet-ron:::tkl-whitfiP.lrl 1 () /') 1 /') ()1 "
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whltheld: UttiCml Presictentlal, congress10na1 ana JUOlClai ... t'age Lor <+L
JUSTICES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND ... EVERY ONE ELSE, I WILL
, AMEND THIS PETITION IN THREE (3) DAYS ... WHICH OF THESE TWO
COURTS RENDERED JUDGMENT IN BIG STAR HONDA'S FAVOR?
IN THE
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE
PRESIDENT
CONGRESS
SUPREME COURT
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE
FIFTH CIRCUIT AND
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL
COUNCIL
OS-1S-90111,1S-41298,1S---,1S---,1S---,1S---, ANDIS---
10/?1/?01l:i
Lasl rropner KonalO uwayne w nnne10: vrnc1a1 rresiUenua1, Longresswna1 auu J uuil;Iai ... rage: .J u1 '+L.
------·----------------1
IN RE: Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Petitioner/Appellant
***************************
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff
v.
STATE OF TEXAS, Former and Current Magistrate and District Judges; Former and
Current Justices of the FIRST COURT OF APPEALS of Texas; and Former and
Current District Clerks and District Attorneys of Harris County, Texas, Defendants
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL
APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT
OF TEXAS
NO. 25,869--
NO._ EX PARTE: Prophet Ronald
Dwayne Whitfield, Realator-Applicant/Petitioner
IN RE: Prophet Ronald Dwayne
Whitfield, Petitioner
*****************************
httns://casetext:enmhJsP.rs/nrnnhP.t-rnn::~ln-whitfiP.ln . 1 f\/")1 /")f\1'
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 4 of 42
IN THE OFFICES OF
THE PRE;SIDENT
AND THE VICE PRESIDENT
NO._ _ _ _ _ __
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT/VICE
PRESIDENT TO SIGN AND ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AS WILL ENFORCE
AND PRESERVE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, BASED ON THE
INFORMATION SET OUT BELOW AND IN THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS
************************************
httos://casetext.com/users/nronhet-ronalcl-whitfielcl 1 {)/? 1 /?{) 1"
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 5 of 42
IN THE UNITED STATES
SUPREME COURT
AND _ __
Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's MOTIONS FOR LEAVE /TO SUE OUT THESE
PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO "REOPEN"; AND FOR THE
JUSTICES OF SAID COURT TO OBSERVE THE JUDICIAL ACTION ALREADY
BEING TAKEN AND TO BE TAKEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW, AND
FORMAL DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF VOID SANCTION
ORDER, AS RENDERED WITHOUT "POWER"/ "JURISDICTION," BASED ON THE
COURT'S OWN DECISION, AS ANNOUNCED IN STEEL CO. v. CITIZENS FOR A
BETTER ENVIRONMENT,n8 S. CT. 1003 (1998)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT
AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL
Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's FORMAL DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL
DETERMINATION OF VOID SANCTION ORDERS FOR WONT OF
JURISDICTION, THUS BEING RENDERED WITHOUT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY
ON PART OF THE JUDGE ACTING FOR THE COURT, AND MOTIONS FOR
REHEARING ON JUDICIAL COUNCIL'S ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR
REVIEW OF CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE STEWART'S ORDER DISMISSING
COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BROUGHT AGAINST U.S.
DISTRICT JUDGE SIM LAKE FOR HIS WILLFUL REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH
THE LAW AND COURT RULES, AS IMPOSED UPON ijiM BY THE "CODE OF ,
JUDICIAL CONDUCT," AND MOTION TO SUE OUT, IN FORMA PAUPERIS,
WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY, IN ADVANCE, THE COSTS, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.
C. SECTION 1915(a), WITH SUPPORTING 28U.S.C. SECTION 1746
AFFIDAVIT,THESE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS AND LAWSUITS ESCALATING TO
THEIR APPEALS (ALSO BROUGHT BY DEMAND TO CHALLENGE NOT THE
ORDERS AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THE LOWER COURTS ON THE MERITS OF
THE CASE, BUT CHALLENGE SUCH AS VOID FOR WONT OF JURISDICTION
TO PROCEED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE CASE)("A VOID ORDER OR
httns://casetext.com/users/nronhet-ron~lrl-whitfielrl 1 ()/? 1/?() 1 "
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 6 of 42
JUDGMENT MAY BE ATTACKED ANYWHERE AND AT ANYTIME BECAUSE IT
DOES NOT AFFECT LEGAL RIGHTS AND IS A COMPLETE NULLITY FROM
INCEPT AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO RESPECT")
IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND SUPREME
COURT
OF TEXAS
NO. 25,869-
_CRIMINAL
NO. _ _ _ _ CIVIL
Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's PETITIONS AND MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO
FILE IN CRIMINAL AND IN CIVIL LAW MATTERS SUCH PETITIONS FOR
WRITS OF MANDAMUS, TO THE 174TH, 295TH, 333RD, 337TH AND 351ST
JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; AND TO THE FIRST
AND TO THE FOURTEENTH COURTS OF APPEALS OF TEXAS
TO THE PRESIDENT:
TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:
TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:
TO THE AFORESAID STATE AND FEDERAL JUDGES AND JUSTICES OF THE
STATE OF TEXAS AND OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:
TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:
TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD OVER:
******************************************************************************************************* **
IN THE
httns://casetext.com/users/nronhP.t-ron~lrl-whitfiPlrl 1 (l/")1 /")(\1'
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 7 of 42
113TH, 133RD AND 295TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF .HARRIS
COUNTY, TEXAS
TRIAL COURT CAUSE NUMBERS 2015-473,2015-19565,2015-08974,2015-22666,AND
2015-22882
Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Plaintiff
v.
BIG STAR HONDA, et al., Defendants
Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE OF THE
113TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; FOR
HEARINGS TO HOLD BOTH COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BIG STAR HONDA
AND DEFENDANT BIG STAR HONDA ITSELF IN CONTEMPT OF COURT; TO
STRIKE THE MOTION OF COUNSEL FOR FIRST SERVICE CREDIT UNION FOR
COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO BOTH CONFERENCE WITH Prophet/Plaintiff
REGARDING COUNSEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SAID COUNSEL'S
FAILURE TO INCLUDE A CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE WITH HIS SAID
MOTION AS IS REQUIRED BY TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (WERE
THIS CASE BROUGHT BEFORE OUR U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE Sam R.
Cummings, IT IS LIKELY HERE ,TOO,THAT HE WOULD HAVE ORDERED SUCH
A MOTION BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD ON HIS OWN MOTION,
PROTECTING MY RIGHTS); FOR SANCTIONS; TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; AND
RESPONSE OF Prophet/Plaintiff Ronald Dwayne Whitfield TO SAID COUNSEL'S
MOTION TO DISMISS, AND AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY IN RESPONSE TO
ORDER FROM ORAL HEARING ALLOWING TIME TO AMEND AFFIDAVITS TO
PROVIDE JUDGE WITH THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF U.S. SUPREME COURT'S
"HOLDING" THAT ALL THESE COUNSELS HAVE BEEN IN LEGAL ERROR TO
.HAVE CONTESTED IN THE FIRST PLACE SUCH AFFIDAVITS OF INDIGENCY
THAT Prophet's ORIGINAL AND FIRST AMENDED AFFIDAVIT ARE SUFFICIENT
ALREADY
*****************************************************
Li:t:st rropnt::t KOllalU lJWaym: W llllllt:lU: Vlllt.:lal rrt:SlUt:fllli:tl, \......OHgrt;SSlOlli:tl i:tUU J UU1\,;H11 ... r(lgc; 0 Ul '-tL.
ALL "LEGAL TERMS" USED HEREIN ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN
WHAT THEY LEGALLY MEAN; E.G, "COURT" MEANS JUST THAT, AN
"INSTITUTION" VESTED WITH POWER AND THE RIGHT TO ACT WITHIN
THE LIMITS OF THAT POWER, WHEREAS THE LEGAL TERM "JUDGE" MEANS
A NATURAL PERSON OF FLESH AND BLOOD AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE
POWER FOR THE COURT; "FRIVOLOUS,""RENDER," "ENTER," "JUDGMENT,"
"SENTENCE,""CONVICTION" AND SO ON HAVE LEGAL.DEFINITIONS EITHER
ESTABLISH BY CONGRESS, TEXAS LEGISLATURE OR CONSTRUED BY JUDGES
AND JUSTICES ACTING FOR COURTS.
*****************************************************
PREAMBLE
"[Our Greatest Prophet Ever] Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every
I
kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every- city or household divided
against itself will not stand.
"If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his Kingdom
stand?" (Our Holy Bible.)
In Re Thoma, 873 s.w. 2d 477(Tex. Rev. Trib.1994):
Whereas a corrupt state judge divided against the corrupted legal system of the
Kingdom of the State of Texas, just like Prophet Jesus stated, that kingdom will have
been "ruined," and so the Kingdom of the State of Texas did cast out "former Judge
Thoma."
"The record in the instant case establishes that on January 9, 1992 [which just so
happened to be the same day that the State of Texas, corruptly, and, therefore,
unlawfully, caused such non-signed and non-filed 'docket sheets' in a criminal
lawsuit being styled 'The State of Texas v. Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Cause No.
617718, in The 174th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas,' to reflect that I
· would be illegally and criminally sued by the SAME said State of Texas through the
office of her District Attorney of Harris County], a conversation took place in the
stairwell of the Galveston County Courthouse between Respondent [Judge] in which
the following was discussed:
Judge: What you got?
httos://casetext.com/users/nronhet-ron::~lcl-whitfiP.lrl 1 ()/') 1 /')()1"
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 9 of 42
**********
Judge:Oh, yeah, that's what I'm saying is that apparently what happened is that it was
· on the docket sheet but it didn't get transferred over to the, you know, judgment
papers and that's what the probation department gets. This happens all the time
where they get they [sic] fill in the the judgment and its different from what the [sic]
actually occurs in the courtroom on the docket sheet. So what your, what's your
phone number?
**********
Judge: I guess so if he told me what was happening, shit I'd be worried about it too.
Goddamn, I tell you shit man your nuts are going to jail man some big nigger going
to be fucking you in the ass for the next two years
Mathews: Now that's when they get me on the murder charge. Go out this door or
that one?
Mendez: No, I saw
Judge: Where you parked?
Mathews: Right there.
Judge: Go out that door."
ANY DEFINITION OF THE WORD "CORRUPT" WILL SUFFICE HEREIN,
WHETHER THAT DEFINITION BE A LEGAL OR A COMMON ONE
Dear Readers:
I have drafted this lengthy Petition in My role as Paraclete, defined as a ''Wise
Counsellor," a prosecutor.
"Convince" and "persuade" do not mean the same thing. We "convince" some one
that something is or is not so; but we "persuade" someone when we get them to take
or to not take some particular form of action.
For example, once our Last Prophet, your Paraclete (i.e., acting in the role of a
· prosecutor; an advocate, or intercessor) convinces the World that He truly is REAL
God's Last Prophet; convinces the World to be in the wrong about sin and about
righteousness and about judgment--wrong about sin because we people actually do
not believe in our Great Prophet Jesus; about righteousness because Prophet Jesus
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 10 of 42
went back to be with our REAL God, such that neither His first Disciples nor we see
Him any longer; and about judgment because the prince of REAL God's World now
stands condemned already; and that the American legal system truly is corrupted
beyond recognition, He will easily persuade them to take a particular course of
action: "repent" and today, not on tomorrow.
*****************************************************
Now, whether or not you be or not be REAL God-fearing and whether or not you be
either having or not having true love and real respect for law and for order in any
society and having genuine love for our country today and for our future on
tomorrow or be that you have none whatsoever, please still keep reading this
petition.
At the outset, all such cases herein being cited is the ""proof" or the "evidence"
proving'' that which I state as being both true and correct; any licensed attorney
who is not subject to practice law in courts in and having geographical jurisdiction
over the State of Texas may, without fear and retribution, go on television and
confirm that which all I have stated below, as far as the law is concerned, is so very
true, and that not only has Texas, unlawfully, carried out unlawful sentences of
death and of incarceration in the face of"purportedjudgment[s]"ofHarris County,
Texas, but also such evils now and do constitute such an unlawful motive for both
the Government of the State of Texas and our Federal Government to cause,
unlawfully, death andfor incarceration of Me, so as to avoid being exposed.
An American "legal system" being "already'' corrupt beyond recognition will break
down --just like a car sometimes do, and without such a legal system in our
government as remaining set up and properly functioning, we therefore can have no
government at all, for each branch is essential in our REAL God's Society. And if our
said legal system in fact be truly corrupted beyond recognition as stated' by Judge
Jones, if not now, then our question is exactly "when" do we fix the motor in our car
(or shall we just buy a new on)?
Please, and what be of the legal and financial ramifications on the legal system of
Government in the State of Texas and on her purse when even our President(s) and
our members of Congress all have had enough and finally come out and admit to
you of this and of what all I have told you be in fact TRUE?
httns ://casetextcom/m~ers/nrnnhP.t -rnn::~l rl- wh1tfi p 1rl 1 {)/')1/')(\1 &:
Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 11 of 42
There surely will be outrage of the highest magnitude, for since this has happened to
someone else it could have happened to you and so you can now see by this petition
that with and without the assistance of a lawyer, you too would be now and would
have been then (in the shoes of another) treated no differently. See John 14: 16-
17&26;15:26 and 16:7-15 (Holy Bible).
At the end of this section to this petition, this document will TRULY go on to
explain to its readers about when, where, why and how I became our REAL God's
Last Prophet, and so you are now encouraged to then conduct your own
investigation into this and to ponder on how and why Texas (through her parole
board) unintentionally and thus inadvertently allowed Me to become released to
parole from (her)Hell, just to now successfully and finally expose her worldwide,
thus struggling from prison cells of Texas and now here in Society doing exactly all
the "works" our Great Prophet Jesus declared unto His disciple that I would do after
He would go away. And I tell you the truth: He shall not return unto the Earth until
each work as declared by Him and recorded and entered of Record in the Minutes of
the bookof John, has been accomplished (see John 16: 7-16-15).
*****************************************************
NOW COMES Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, in "propria persona" (not "pro
se"), and in His role of Paraclete would Respectfully unto you show:
I.
INTRODUCTION
"THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN CORRUPTED ALMOST
BEYOND RECOGNITION, JUDGE EDITH JONES OF THE U.S. COURT OF
APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, TOLD THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY OF
HARVARD LAW SCHOOL ON FEBRUARY 28." MASS NEWS.COM, March 7, 2003.
Honorable Judges and Justices of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and of the
Texas Supreme Court; Honorable President Obama and future Honorable
President;Honorable Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; Honorable Members of
Congress;Honorable Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and
L