in Re Richard Stephen Calkins

ACCEPTED 01-15-01009-CR FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS 12/1/2015 9:41:50 AM 01-15-01009-CV CHRISTOPHER PRINE CLERK NO. - 15 - - CV IN THE COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS FILED IN IN RE RICHARD STEPHEN CALKINS st 1 COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TX Relator DEC 1, 2015 CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE, CLERK Original Proceeding from Cause No. 441,165 as continuation of Cause No. 378,993 In Probate Court at Law No. 2 Harris County, Texas PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS Susan C. Norman Texas Bar No. 15083020 Law Offices of Susan C. Norman P . O. Box 52518 Houston, Texas 77052 713-882-2066 (Phone) 713-229-8328 (Facsimile) suenorman@suenormanlaw.com COUNSEL FOR RELATOR ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED  IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL 1. Relator: Richard Stephen Calkins, Trial and Appellate Counsel: Susan C. Norman Law Offices of Susan C. Norman P. O. Box 52518 Houston, Texas 77052 713-882-2066 (Phone) 713-229-8328 (Facsimile) suenorman@suenormanlaw.com 2. Respondents: The Honorable Christine Butts Probate Court No. 4, Suite *** 201 Caroline, 7th Floor Houston, TX 77002 3. Real Party in Interest: Carolyn James Trial Counsel: G. Wesley Urquhart P. O. Box 272928 Houston, Texas 77277 -i-  TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . i TABLE OF CONTENTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ii - iv INDEX OF AUTHORITIES. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v - vi APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi - vii STATEMENT OF THE CASE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 -2 STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 ISSUES PRESENTED. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 STATEMENT OF FACTS. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 -10 A. This case is a continuation of the 2008 guardianship case from which Hon. Butts voluntarily recused herself in 2011, a case in which Hon. Mike Wood was disqualified in 2009 from presiding over these parties... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 - 6 B. No other judge was presiding over the [failed] guardianship case when Mary Olive Calkins died and probate of her Last Will and Testament was filed. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 C. Probate of Mary Olive Calkins’ Last Will and Testament fell into a court in which the judge had voluntarily recused herself in 2011 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 - 8 D. Tex. Gov’t. Code 25.00255, et seq. changed Sept. 1, 2015, leading to void order from Hon. Butts, which was used to issue orders by Hon. Herman, and Hon. Burwell, and potentially, Hon. Wood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 - 10 D-1. Hon. Butts waited until the statute changed on Sept. 1, 2015, to issue a void “amended order of recusal.”.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 D-2. Hon. Herman used Hon. Butts’ void -ii-  “amended order of recusal” to issue orders after the statute changed which could not have been issued before it changed.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D-3. Hon. Herman issued a void order assigning Hon. Burwell, ONLY to hear a motion to recuse Hon. Wood, not a disqualification motion.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 D-4. On Nov. 20,2015, Hon. Burwell issued another void order denying Hon. Wood’s disqualification with no assignment, no notice, and no hearing.. . . . . . . . . . . 10 D-5. On December 1, 2015, there is a hearing set before disqualified judge, Hon. Mike Wood, which will allow him to resume jurisdiction over parties and cases over which he was disqualified in 2009 from presiding... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 - 13 ARGUMENT. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 26 A. Standard of review.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13 - 14 B. Hon. Butts’ Sept, 2, 2015, void order violates due process.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 C. Hon. Butts failed to comply with the rules governing recusal... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 - 16 D. Even Hon. Butts’ plenary power expired by August 29, 2015.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 E. Hon. Butts’ Sept. 2, 2015, void order cannot authorize subsequent void orders by Hon. Herman and Hon. Burwell that permit a disqualified judge to resume jurisdiction of cases and parties... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 - 18 F. Hon. Herman’s orders based on Hon. Butts’ void order, are void, as well, as are Hon. Burwell’s orders void when based on Hon. Herman’s orders... . . . . . . . . 18 - 19 -iii- G. All the void orders violate Fourteenth Amendment due process protection to Richard Stephen Calkins and Mary Olive Calkins and/or her estate.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 - 20 H. Once recused or disqualified, a judge may not re-enter the case.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 - 22 I. The byzantine, cascading series of void orders started with Hon. Butts’ Sept. 2, 2015, order... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23 - 24 J. Using the void orders, disqualified judge, Hon. Wood, is resuming jurisdiction of the cases.. . . . . . . . . . . 24 - 25 K. One of the fundamental goals of the American legal system is equal justice to all under the law.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 L. Mandamus is the only adequate remedy for Richard Stephen Calkins when challenging a void order... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 1. Mandamus is the proper remedy for challenging a judge’s resumption of jurisdiction after disqualification and /or recusal... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 2. Mr. Calkins will suffer immediate and irreparable harm.. . . . 26 CONCLUSION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 - 27 PRAYER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 CERTIFICATION. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 -iv- INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Page In re Alpert, 276 S.W.3d 592, 599-600 (Tex. App.–Houston[1st Dist.] 2008, r’hg denied... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 Ex Parte Eastland, 811 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. 1991). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 In re Hecht, 213 S.W.3d 547, 565, 2006 Tex. Lexis 1340. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27 McGrew v. Heard, 779 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding).. . . . . . . 13, 26 Moody v. Simmons, 858 F.2d 137, 142 (3d Cir. 1988).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14, 20 In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 In re Susan C. Norman, 191 S.W.3d 858, 861 (Tex. App.–Houston[14th Dist.) 2006 Tex. App. Lexis 3292. . . . . . 16 In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-136 (Tex. 2004).. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 14 In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605, 3 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1005 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam).. . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 26 State Bar v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. 1980) 1980 Tex. Lexis 363.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21 In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 591 (Tex. 1998). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 Urbish v. 127th Judicial Dist. Court, 708 S.W.2d 429, 431, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 202 (Tex. 1986). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13, 26 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992); 1992 Lexis 14... . . . 14 -v- Statutes Page Fourteenth Amendment to United States Constitution.. . . . . . . . . . . . . 19,20 TEX. CONST. art. V, § 11.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 Tex. Gov’t. Code 25.00255, et seq.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8, 11, 12, 15, 17, 22, 23 Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 306a.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Treatises Page 1997 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 423, 450, citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14 Donald Nugent, Judicial Bias, 42 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1, 17, 1994... . . . . . . . 25 Appendices Appendix 1 Feb. 02, 2009, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood on Constitutional Grounds Appendix 2 March 05, 2009, Rep Record Motion to Disqualify Mike Wood on Constitutional Grounds Appendix 3 March 05, 2009, Order Granting Motion to Disqualify Mike Wood on Constitutional Grounds Appendix 4 Orders of Voluntary Recusal & Disqualification of Harris County Probate Judges Appendix 5 08-10-11 - Excerpt Rep Rec 378993 - James Listed Hon. Sebesta Name First Appendix 6 03-01-2013 - Hon Weiman Order Dismiss 2012-51725 Due James Lack Standing -vi- Appendix 7 Dec. 03, 2012, Hon. Sebesta Voluntary Recusal from Calkins Cases Appendix 8 07-29-15 - James Motion Recuse Hon. Butts & Motion Consolidate wi Guardianship Cases. Appendix 8.1 July 30, 2015 Judge Butts' Recusal at James Request Appendix 9 11-02-15 - Harris County Clerk Docket 441165 as of 11-00 A.M. Appendix 10 Hon. Butts Sept. 2, 2015 Amended Order of Recusal Appendix 11 Sept. 8, 2015 - Judge Herman Minute Order 15-065 Order Clerk to Transfer Case to Probate Ct. 2 Appendix 12 Calkins by Libby Motion Recuse and-or Disqualify Hon. Wood Appendix 13 Sept. 15, 2015 - Judge Wood Refer Motion to Recuse and-or Disqualify Appendix 14 Sept. 28, 2015 - Judge Herman Assign Judge Burwell Hear ONLY Motion to Recuse not Disqualify Appendix 15 Oct. 16, 2015 - Judge Burwell Order Deny Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Appendix 16 Signed Order on Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood -vii-  STATEMENT OF THE CASE Nature of the case: This probate case is a continuation of [failed, never completed] guardianship litigation [Mary Olive Calkins as proposed ward] begun by Carolyn James in 2008, involving Mary Olive Calkins, Carolyn James, Richard Stephen Calkins, and Michael Easton, in which the Honorable Mike Wood was constitutionally disqualified in 2009, and which now continues as probate of Mary Olive Calkins’ Last Will and Testament. Richard Stephen Calkins asserts that the 2009 order granting of the motion to disqualify the Hon. Mike Wood on constitutional grounds precludes Hon. Mike Wood from sitting on any case in which Mary Olive Calkins or her estate, Carolyn James, and Richard Stephen Calkins are parties. Respondent: Respondent is Honorable Christine Butts. Respondent’ s actions: Hon. Butts voluntarily recused herself in 2011 from the Mary Olive Calkins guardianship involving all the above parties, supra, without ever having conducted any hearing in which testimony and evidence were presented. On July 15, 2015, Hon. Butts held a hearing in which she made statements about Mary Olive Calkins’ prior capacity and concluded she did not need to re-recuse herself from the probate matter. After Carolyn James filed a motion to recuse Hon. Butts and a motion to consolidate with the guardianship case on July 29, 2015, Hon. Butts voluntarily recused herself by order issued July 30, 2015, and did not refer the case pursuant to Tex. Gov’t. Code §25.00255, et seq. Hon. Butts took no further action to refer the case pursuant to Tex. Gov’t. Code §25.00255, et seq for thirty-three (33) days until after she issued her “amended order of recusal” on September 2, 2015, after the Tex. Gov’t. Code §25.00255, et seq., statute changed on September 1, 2015, then referred the case to Hon. Herman to effect transfer which he did on September 8, 2015, transferring it to Probate Court No. 2 [Mike Wood presiding]. -1- Relief sought: Respondent Hon. Christine Butts: Relator asks this Court to issue a writ of mandamus directing Hon. Christine Butts to: 1. vacate her September 2, 2015, “Amended Order of Recusal;” 2. As required on July 30, 2015, after her order of [re-] recusal, notify the clerk who serves the statutory probate courts of Harris County to immediately notify the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district and request that the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district assign a judge pursuant to Section 25.002201 as required on July 30, 2015. -2-  STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction under Texas Government Code Section 22.221(b) to issue a writ of mandamus against a judge of a district or county court in its district. Because this is an original proceeding challenging the erroneous actions of a statutory probate judge in Harris County in issuing a void order which led to a series of additional orders based on it, this Court has jurisdiction to issue a writ of mandamus under well-established Texas precedent. -3-  STATEMENT OF ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Whether after Hon. Butts entered her order of voluntary [re- ]recusal on July 30, 2015 [following her voluntary recusal in 2011], she was required to follow Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255(g)((1)(B), subject to subsection (l) in effect on July 30, 2015; 2.. Whether after Hon. Butts entered her order of voluntary [re- ]recusal on July 30, 2015, she was precluded from making any further orders in the case, including a sua sponte “amended order of recusal” thirty-three (33) days later, after the Tex. Gov’t. Code §25.00255, et seq., statute changed, and referring the case to Hon. Herman to transfer; 3. Whether Hon. Butts’ void order of Sept. 2, 2015, could confer any legitimacy on the two orders based on that order entered by Hon. Herman and by the two orders entered by Hon. Burwell, thus permitting the cases to be transferred back to Probate Court No. 2, disqualified judge Hon. Mike Wood presiding; 4. Whether a disqualified judge, Hon. Mike Wood, can later resume jurisdiction of the parties and cases; -4-  STATEMENT OF FACTS A. This case is a continuation of the 2008 guardianship case from which Hon. Butts voluntarily recused herself in 2011, a case in which Hon. Mike Wood was disqualified in 2009 from presiding over these parties. In 2008 Carolyn James filed a [now-failed and never completed] guardianship case [Cause No. 378,993] over Mary Olive Calkins which fell into Probate Court No. 2, Hon. Mike Wood presiding. Richard Stephen Calkins, individually and as agent-in-fact for Mary Olive Calkins, opposed the guardianship. Michael Easton was made a party to the guardianship by the Honorable Mike Wood when he sought sanctions against both Mr. Easton—although at the time motion for sanctions was filed, Mr. Easton had not appeared as a party—and Susan Norman, counsel for Richard Stephen Calkins Thereafter, in 2009, a motion to disqualify the Honorable Mike Wood on constitutional grounds was filed. App. 1. The Honorable Olen Underwood assigned himself to hear the First Amended Motion to Disqualify the Honorable Mike Wood on Constitutional Grounds, holding a hearing on March 5, 2009, App. 2, and after finding that Carolyn James joined in the motion, the motion was granted App. 3. Thereafter the Honorable Mike Wood did not further preside over the case, and the other statutory probate court judges in Harris County -5- voluntarily recused themselves (Hon. Christine Butts, Hon. William McCullough, and Hon. Rory Olsen, Hon. Loyd Wright). App 4, orders of recusal. B. No other judge was presiding over the [failed] guardianship case when Mary Olive Calkins died and probate of her Last Will and Testament was filed. Subsequently, after James’ request and the agreement of all parties the Hon. Olen Underwood assigned the Honorable Patrick Sebesta to the guardianship case, which had been re-assigned to Probate Court No. 4 in 2011. App 5, RR Cause No. 378,993. After Ms. James sued the Honorable Olen Underwood and the Honorable Patrick Sebesta in September, 2012 in district court for “not doing their job,” Ms. James’ case was dismissed due to her lack of standing to sue and the judicial immunity of both judicial officers. App. 6. See, James v. Underwood, et al, 438 S.W.3d 704 (Tex.App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2014, r’hg denied). Subsequently, the Hon. Patrick Sebesta voluntarily recused himself from all Calkins cases on December 3, 2012, App. 7, and there was no judge subsequently assigned to the guardianship case. C. Probate of Mary Olive Calkins Last Will and Testament fell into a court in which the judge had voluntarily recused herself in 2011 Mary Olive Calkins was a proposed ward who died July 8, 2015, with no guardian appointed. The probate of Mary Olive’s Last Will and -6- Testament is a continuation of the litigation involving both Richard Stephen Calkins and Carolyn James, children of Mary Olive Calkins. Local Rules mandate that a new application to admit will to probate be filed in same court as the guardianship cases. After the competing applications to probate Mary Olive’s Last Will and Testament were filed, on July 29, 2015, Ms. James filed Motion to Recuse the Honorable Christine Butts and Motion to Consolidate With the Guardianship Cases, App. 8 the judge of Probate Court No. 4, the Honorable Christine Butts, [re-]recused herself on motion by Carolyn James, issuing her order of recusal on July 30, 2015. App. 8.1. Pursuant to the local rules, the probate case was required to be consolidated with the still-pending, failed guardianship case. Local Rules of Harris County Probate Courts 2.2 Case Numbering - New Matters. All new estate administrations, guardianships, trust matters (including testamentary trusts when the underlying estate has been closed) that are filed in the Probate Courts of Harris County shall be assigned to a court in accordance with Section 25.1034 of the Government Code. Each case shall be assigned a docket number sequentially. All matters relating or appertaining to an estate or guardianship that has not been closed as provided in the Probate Code, including proceedings upon trusts created by a decedent's will, shall remain in such court subject to an order of transfer as with any case, and shall retain the original docket number with an appropriate sub-file number. Each subsequent matter filed involving the same decedent or -7-  proposed ward shall be filed in the original file, under the same docket number and in the same court as the original filing. . . . Those matters that are principally concerned with the administration of the estate are "core matters" and should be filed under the main cause number. 2.5.1 Probate of wills, issuance of letters testamentary, administration and guardianship; 2.5.3 Contest to will, heirship, administration (before and after the grant of letters). Between July 30, 2015, and August 31, 2015, the Clerk’s Record App. 9, P 5 - 6 demonstrates an absence of Hon. Butts’ request to the probate clerk to follow the statute in effect on July 30, 2015, that the probate clerk take the actions mandated by Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255(l) to: . . . immediately notify the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district [on July 30, 2015, the Hon. Olen Underwood] and request that the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district assign a judge under Section 25.002201. D. Tex. Gov’t. Code 25.00255, et seq. changed Sept. 1, 2015, leading to void order from Hon. Butts, which was used to issue orders by Hon. Herman, and Hon. Burwell, and potentially, Hon. Wood D-1. Hon. Butts waited until the statute changed on Sept. 1, 2015, to issue a void “amended order of recusal.” On September 2, 201t, thirty-three (33) days after her July 30, 2015, voluntary [re-]recusal order, and after Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255 changed on September 1, 2015, Hon. Butts issued an “Amended Order of Recusal,” App. 10, referring her order of recusal to the Hon. Guy Herman. -8-  D-2. Hon. Herman used Hon. Butts’ void “amended order of recusal” to issue orders after the statute changed which could not have been issued before it changed. On September 8, 2015, the Hon. Guy Herman ordered the Harris County Clerk to transfer the probate case to Probate Court No. 2 [disqualified jurist, Hon. Mike Wood presiding]. App. 11. On September 15, 2015, [Joseph Libby, now-former] counsel for Mr. Calkins filed Motion for Recusal and/or Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood Pursuant to Sec. 25.00255 of the Texas Government Code. App. 12. On September 15, 2015, Hon. Wood referred the Motion for Recusal and/or Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood Pursuant to Sec. 25.00255 of the Texas Government Code to Judge Herman. App. 13. D-3. Hon. Herman issued a void order assigning Hon. Burwell, ONLY to hear a motion to recuse Hon. Wood, not a disqualification motion. On September 28, 2015, Hon. Herman issued a void order of assignment of Hon. Gladys Burwell to hear only a motion to recuse Hon. Wood, not disqualification. App. 14. On October 16, 2015, Hon. Burwell denied motion to recuse and disqualify by her void written order. App. 15. -9-  D-4. On Nov. 20,2015, Hon. Burwell issued another void order denying disqualification with no assignment, no notice, and no hearing. On November 2, 2015, Calkins through current counsel filed Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood, Based On the Prior, March 5, 2009, Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood In Case Involving Mary Olive Calkins, Carolyn James, and Richard Stephen Calkins, In Which Hon. Olen Underwood Found Carolyn James Joined in the Motion for Disqualification. (“Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification”) App. 12. With no new [void] assignment to “review” a matter of disqualification of Hon. Wood 9even under the first void assignment on Sept. 28, 2015,) the Hon. Gladys Burwell “reviewed” the Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification, without notice and without holding a hearing, issued another void order denying the it on November 20, 2015. App. 16 D-5. On December 1, 2015, there is a hearing set before disqualified judge, Hon. Mike Wood, which will allow him to resume jurisdiction over parties and cases over which he was disqualified in 2009 from presiding. A hearing by Ms. James to appoint a temporary administrator is set in Probate Court No. 2, Mike Wood presiding, for December 1, 2015. -10-  SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT Parties are entitled to due process in all aspects of a trial, and the most basic consideration is a fair trial before an impartial judge. Mandamus is appropriate when a trial court enters a void order and sets up a cascading series of void orders based on it which appear to be designed to permit a disqualified judge, Hon. Mike Wood, to resume jurisdiction of a case or over parties over whom he formerly presided. Once a judge is disqualified or recused, that judicial officer cannot later take action in the case or on a continuation of the case involving the same parties. After the March 5, 2009, hearing in which the Hon. Olen Underwood found that Ms. James joined in the motion, he granted the motion to disqualify the Hon. Mike Wood on constitutional grounds. Because the Hon. Mike Wood was constitutionally disqualified in 2009 from the guardianship case with these same parties, and the probate case continues with the same parties, the provisions of the 2009 Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255, et seq., are still applicable to this case, and these parties. As of March, 2011, the remaining three (3) statutory probate judges, including the Hon. Christine Butts, had voluntarily recused themselves from the guardianship case. As a result, all four (4) statutory probate judges in Harris County stand recused or disqualified for the continuation -11- of the continuation of the guardianship litigation as the probate of the last will and testament of the decedent who was the proposed ward. Once Hon. Butts [re-]recused herself on July 30, 2015, her mandated course of action was under the then-current Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255, et seq. Hon. Butts could take no further action in the case other than request the clerk serving the statutory probate courts to request the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district to assign a judge under Section 25.002201 to preside over the case. Hon. Butts’ “Amended Order of Recusal” entered thirty-three (33) days after her [re-]recusal order of July 30, 2015, was void, and did not authorize further action by anyone. Hon. Herman could not use her void “Amended Order of Recusal” of September 2, 2015, to take action he was precluded from taking before the September 1, 2015, Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255 statute changed. Hon. Burwell’s assignment is void and her orders are void. Hon. Mike Wood still stands disqualified in the case. The Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255, et seq., which was effective on July 30, 2015, controls this case and the the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district must assign a judge under Section 25.002201 to preside over the case. -12-  Mandamus is proper because Richard Stephen Calkins has no adequate remedy by appeal to contest the void orders entered by Hon. Butts, and subsequently by Hon. Herman and Hon. Burwell, and prospectively, by Hon. Wood. Richard Stephen Calkins will suffer immediate and palpable harm if the disqualified judge, Hon. Wood, is permitted to resume jurisdiction over the cases and parties. ARGUMENT A. Standard of review. Because Hon. Butts’ order of September 2, 2015, is void, mandamus will issue to correct a void order of a trial court. 1 Further, the Texas Supreme Court has held that relator need not show that he lacks an adequate appellate remedy if an order challenged by writ of mandamus is void. 2 Mandamus is available to correct a trial court’s clear abuse of discretion when there is no other adequate remedy available by appeal. 2 When a trial court fails to apply the law correctly or fails to apply the law to 1 Urbish v. 127th Judicial Dist. Court, 708 S.W.2d 429, 431, 29 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 202 (Tex. 1986); McGrew v. Heard, 779 S.W.2d 455, 457 (Tex. App.--Houston [1st Dist.] 1989, orig. proceeding). 2 In re Southwestern Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605, 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1005 (Tex. 2000) (per curiam). 2 In re Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 148 S.W.3d 124, 135-136 (Tex. 2004). -13- the facts, it abuses its discretion.3 A trial court abuses its discretion if it acts in an arbitrary or unreasonable manner, without reference to any guiding rules or principles. 4 Mandamus is also available when a trial court either (1) violated a duty imposed by law or (2) clearly abused its discretion. 5 B. Hon. Butts’ Sept, 2, 2015, void order violates due process. One of the most fundamental tenants of due process is that every 6 litigant is entitled to a fair trial before an unbiased decision maker. C. Hon. Butts failed to comply with the rules governing recusal. Although she had already voluntarily recused herself in 2011, when requested to do so again by Carolyn James the Honorable Christine Butts re-recused herself on July 30, 2015, after hearing in which she resumed jurisdiction over the cases and parties. Once Hon. Butts entered her voluntary recusal—for the second time—she could take no further action in the case and her next actions were governed by § 25.00255(g)((1)(B) — subject to subsection (l). Hon. Butts 3 Id. at 135. 4 In re Nitla S.A. de C.V., 92 S.W.3d 419, 422 (Tex. 2002) (orig. proceeding). 5 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex. 1992); 1992 Lexis 14. 6 1997 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 423, 450, citing In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). -14- was required to first adhere to Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.00255(g)((1)(B)(1-2): (g) A judge who recuses himself or herself: (1) shall enter an order of recusal and: (B) subject to Subsection (l), if the judge serves a statutory probate court located in a county with more than one statutory probate court, request that the clerk who serves the statutory probate courts in that county randomly reassign the case to a judge of one of the other statutory probate courts located in the county; and (2) may not take other action in the case except for good cause stated in the order in which the action is taken. Then, Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.00255 subsection (l) took effect because all statutory probate judges in Harris County were either recused or disqualified, App. 4, supra: (l) If a clerk of a statutory probate court is unable to reassign a case as requested under Subsection (g)(1)(B) or (i-3)(2) because the other statutory probate court judges in the county have been recused or disqualified or are otherwise unavailable to hear the case, the clerk shall immediately notify the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district and request that the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district assign a judge under Section 25.002201 to hear the case. The Hon. Christine Butts did not follow the mandates of Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.00255, et. seq., after her July 30, 2015, re-recusal at any time prior to August 31, 2015, the last day the 2009 version of Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.00255, et. seq., was still in effect. The clerks’ record, App. 9, P 5-6, also contains no order from Hon. Butts sending her voluntary recusal order to the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district as she was required to do. -15-  Since 2008, the procedure a recused judge was mandated to follow was made clear in the Alpert 7 mandamus, and on July 30, 2015, the procedure was still valid: We hold that the authority to reassign cases after a party has moved for recusal vests with Judge Underwood as the regional administrative presiding judge, and not Judge Herman, as the presiding judge of the statutory probate courts. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a. Accordingly, the minute orders are void, and we direct Judge Herman to vacate them. We hold that Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 18a vests the appropriate regional presiding administrative judge, not the [*600] presiding administrative judge for the statutory probate courts, with the duty to reassign probate [**19] cases once a motion to recuse has been granted. Accordingly, the orders in question are void, and we direct the presiding administrative judge for the probate courts to vacate them. Alpert @ 599-600 Coincidently, one day after Tex. Gov’t Code § 25.00255, et. seq., changed, some thirty-three (33) days after her order of recusal, instead of following the statute, Hon. Butts issued a new, void order of amended recusal and forwarded it to Hon. Guy Herman. Because Hon. Butts failed to comply with the rules governing motions for recusal, all her subsequent action, including her order are void. 8 7 In re Alpert, 276 S.W.3d 592, 599-600 (Tex. App.–Houston[1st Dist.] 2008, rh’g denied. 8 In re Susan C. Norman, 191 S.W.3d 858, 861 (Tex. App.–Houston[14th Dist.) 2006 Tex. App. Lexis 3292. -16- D. Even Hon. Butts’ plenary power expired by August 29, 2015. Even, arguendo, if the mandate of Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255, et. seq., were not controlling—which it is—under the most generous extension of time for a court to act on its orders, Hon. Butts’ plenary power only could only extend for 30 days after the order was entered, making her amendment to her order also void under the Rules after August 29, 2015. Tex. R. Civ. Proc. 306a. E. Hon. Butts’ Sept. 2, 2015, void order cannot authorize subsequent void orders by Hon. Herman and Hon. Burwell that permit a disqualified judge to resume jurisdiction of cases and parties. Because the order entered by Hon. Butts on September 2, 2015, is void due to her failure on July 30, 2015, to comply with the rules governing motions for recusal, ie., Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255, et. seq., her failure renders void all actions and orders based on that order, including the two Minute Orders entered by Hon. Herman and the two orders entered by Hon. Burwell. When an order is void, it simply means the order in question never existed and is not capable of being revived, waived, ratified, amended or fixed. An order is void when it is apparent that the court rendering the order had no jurisdiction of the parties, no jurisdiction of the subject matter, no jurisdiction to enter the judgment, or no capacity to act as a -17- court. 9. The order is not merely invalid or voidable; it is void from its inception. See Cook v. Cameron, 733 S.W.2d 137, 140 (Tex. 1987). A void order is entirely null within itself; it is not susceptible to ratification or confirmation, and its nullity cannot be waived. See In re Guardianship of B.A.G., 794 S.W.2d 510 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi[13th Dist.] 1990) (void judgment) (citing Easterline v. Bean, 49 S.W.2d 427, 429 (1932); American Universal Ins. Co. v. D.B.&B., Inc., 725 S.W.2d 764, 766 (Tex. App.-[13th Dist.] 1987, writ ref'd n.r.e.). F. Hon. Herman’s orders based on Hon. Butts’ void order, are void, as well, as are Hon. Burwell’s orders void when based on Hon. Herman’s orders. The initial effect of the void order of Hon. Butts is to give authority to Hon. Herman to transfer the case to Probate Court No. 2, to Hon. Mike Wood, a disqualified judge, presiding. When Hon. Herman’s Sept. 8, 2015, order of transfer to Probate Court No. 2 was challenged on Sept. 15, 2015, Hon. Herman used the void order of Hon. Butts to enter yet another void order assigning Hon. Burwell to hear the July 15, 2015, motion to recuse / disqualify. Assuming arguendo, there could possibly have been any validity to the order assigning Hon. Burwell, the void order of assignment only assigned her to 9 Browning v. Placke, 698 S.W.2d 362, 363 (Tex. 1985) -18- hear a motion to recuse, not disqualify. If Hon. Burwell’s order of Oct. 16, 2015, were not void already, it would be void because she was not assigned to consider disqualification. 10 Finally, after Richard Stephen Calkins re-urged Hon. Wood to accept his 2009 disqualification on Nov. 2, filing the Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification, on November 20, 2015, with no notice of hearing and opportunity to respond, Hon. Burwell entered yet another void order denying the motion, apparently based on her prior void assignment by Hon. Herman. G. All the void orders violate Fourteenth Amendment due process protection to Richard Stephen Calkins and Mary Olive Calkins and/or her estate. The final outcome of the cascade of void orders beginning with Hon. Butts’ Sept. 2, 2015, void order is to place Richard Stephen Calkins, Mary Olive Calkins and/or her estate, and Carolyn James in Probate Court No. 2, with a constitutionally disqualified judge, Hon. Mike Wood, presiding over the cases from which he was constitutionally disqualified in 2009. TEX. CONST. art. V, § 11. Once it is determined that a judge is constitutionally disqualified from sitting in a case, the judge is without authority to act and 10 Ex Parte Eastland, 811 S.W.2d 571 (Tex. 1991) -19- the judge's rulings are void. 11 More than 50 years ago the Supreme Court held that” [U]nder the Due Process Clause no judge "can be a judge in his own case [or be] permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome." 12 Due process as protected by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and the Texas Constitution forbids a disqualified judge from re-entering the case. The Supreme Court has stated . . .that a fundamental requirement of due process is that a litigant is entitled to "[a] fair trial in a fair tribunal." Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136. In order to fulfill this constitutional requirement, the Court has held that it violates the Fourteenth Amendment "to subject [a person's] liberty or property to the judgment of a court the judge of which has a direct, personal, substantial, pecuniary interest in reaching a conclusion against him in his case." Tumey v. Ohio, 273 U.S. 510, 523 (1927). Likewise, due process mandates that no judge "can be a judge in his own case [or be] permitted to try cases where he has an interest in the outcome." Murchison, 349 U.S. at 136. Although the interest cannot be defined with precision, the test is whether the situation "would offer a possible temptation to the average man as a judge... not to hold the balance nice, clear and true." Id. (quoting Tumey, 273 U.S. at 532). 1997 B.Y.U. L. Rev. 423, at 438. H. Once recused or disqualified, a judge may not re-enter the case. Once a judge is recused as Hon. Butts is—a lower standard than the 11 In re Union Pac. Res. Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428, 41 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 591 (Tex. 1998). 12 In re Murchison, 349 U.S. 133, 136 (1955). -20- constitutional disqualification of Hon. Wood here—she is always recused from a case. 13 Whether the order says “recused,” or “disqualified,” is not determinative; the motion heard by the Hon. Underwood only requested that Hon. Mike Wood be disqualified on constitutional grounds, and the prayer for relief only requests disqualification on constitutional grounds; the word, “recuse” does not appear in the prayer for relief. The courts look to the substance of a plea for relief to determine the nature of the pleading, not merely at the form of title given to it; the prayer for relief in the motion 14 requesting disqualification, controls. The ministerial act exception, ie., non-discretionary actions a court can take that do not involve exercising judicial discretion or actions that affect the rights of a party, allow a court to act in the case. The non- discretionary, ministerial act required to be taken by Hon. Butts was to follow the mandate Tex. Gov. Code § 25.00255(g)((1)(B)—subject to subsection (l)—that Judge Butts request that the clerk who serves the statutory probate courts in Harris County randomly reassign the case to a judge of one of the other statutory probate courts located in the county. 13 Moody v. Simmons, 858 F.2d 137, 142 (3d Cir. 1988) ("Once a judge has disqualified himself, he or she may enter no further orders in the case."). 14 State Bar v. Heard, 603 S.W.2d 829 (Tex. 1980) 1980 Tex. Lexis 363. -21- Because, however, all judges in Harris County were either voluntarily recused or disqualified, the clerk who serves the statutory probate courts in Harris County was then mandated to follow the statute, Subsection (l) of Tex. Gov. Code § 25.00255: Tex. Gov. Code § 25.00255(l) If a clerk of a statutory probate court is unable to reassign a case as requested under Subsection (g)(1)(B) or (i-3)(2) because the other statutory probate court judges in the county have been recused or disqualified or are otherwise unavailable to hear the case, the clerk shall immediately notify the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district and request that the presiding judge of the administrative judicial district assign a judge under Section 25.002201. Instead, the clerk’s record, App. 9, P 5-6, supra, demonstrates no compliance by Hon. Butts with the statute on July 30, 2015, or at any time up through August 31, 2015, the last day before the statute, Tex. Gov. Code § 25.00255, et seq., changed on September 1, 2015. Hon. Butts had no discretion to refuse to make the request supra, to the clerk as set out above. By her void order thirty-three (33) days after her order re-recusing herself, Hon. Butts put into motion a series of void orders that now place these parties back in Probate Court No. 2, with disqulalified Hon. Mike Wood presiding over the same parties from whom he was disqualified from presiding over on March 5, 2009. -22- I. The byzantine, cascading series of void orders started with Hon. Butts’ Sept. 2, 2015, order. What the clerk’s record does demonstrate is that: 1. coincidently, one day after the Tex. Gov. Code § 25.00255 changed on September 1, 2015, Hon. Butts issued her void order of September 2, 2015, referring the case to Hon. Herman instead of having followed the statute at any time prior to September 1, 2015; 2. using Hon. Butts’ void order, Hon. Herman issued a void order on September 8, 2015, Minute Order 2015-065, which ordered the probate clerk of Harris County to transfer the probate matter to Probate Court No. 2 [disqualified judge Hon. Mike Wood presiding]. (The Minute Order was not made a part of the records of the case until October 19, 2015, forty-one (41) days after action based on that Minute Order was taken.) As a result of the void Minute Order 2015-065, Richard Stephen Calkins [now-former] counsel filed a Motion to Recuse and/or Disqualify Judge Mike Wood, App. 12, supra, based on the 2009 disqualification of Judge Mike Wood. When that motion was presented to him, Hon. Wood referred it to Hon. Herman, allowing the following void orders to be entered: 3. again using Hon. Butts’ void order, Hon. Herman issued a second void order on September 8, 2015: Minute Order 2015-070 in which he assigned Hon. Gladys Burwell to hear the Motion to Recuse, only, of Hon. Wood. Even as a void order, Hon. Burwell was not assigned to hear a Motion for Disqualification. (The Minute Order was not a part of the records of the case until October 19, 2015, three days after action based on that Minute Order was taken.) -23-  4. in a void assignment based on a void order, using a void order, and although only assigned by Hon. Herman to hear the Motion to Recuse, of Hon. Wood, not assigned to hear a Motion for Disqualification, Hon. Burwell entered her own void order denying recusal and/or disqualification of Hon. Mike Wood on October 16, 2015. As a result of that void order by Hon. Burwell, Calkins, through current counsel, filed on November 2, 2015, Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood, Based on the Prior, March 5, 2009, Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood In Case Involving Mary Olive Calkins, Carolyn James, and Richard Stephen Calkins, In Which Hon. Olen Underwood Found Carolyn James Joined in the Motion for Disqualification (hereafter “Motion Re-Urging”). Based on that motion, 5. On November 20, 2015, with no [new, void] order of assignment to have done so and with no notice to the parties of a hearing set to do so, Hon. Burwell “reviewed” and issued yet another void order denying Richard Stephen Calkins’ November 2, 2015, Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood, Based on the Prior, March 5, 2009, Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood In Case Involving Mary Olive Calkins, Carolyn James, and Richard Stephen Calkins, In Which Hon. Olen Underwood Found Carolyn James Joined in the Motion for Disqualification. J. Using the void orders, disqualified judge, Hon. Wood, is resuming jurisdiction over the parties and the cases. After Hon. Wood’s 2009 disqualification, as a result of the five (5) void orders set out above, by setting this case for the appointment of a -24- temporary administrator for December 1, 2015,, Hon. Wood is now attempting to reassume jurisdiction in this case involving the same parties and attempting to enter dispositive orders by appointing a temporary administrator, all in an effort to affect this case. K. One of the fundamental goals of the American legal system is equal justice to all under the law. 15 There can be no equal justice under the law if a recused judge [Hon. Butts] is permitted to resume jurisdiction in order to enter a void order which appears to be done so that other void orders affecting the parties and the case can be entered. There can be no equal justice under the law if the void order issued by Hon. Butts can be used for Hon. Herman to issue other void orders which could not have been issued but for Hon. Butts’ void order. Finally, there can be no equal justice under the law if the serial void orders permit a disqualified judge—Hon. Mike Wood—to resume jurisdiction of the parties and cases in the continuation of a case from which he was constitutionally disqualified. 15 Donald Nugent, Judicial Bias, 42 Clev. St. L. Rev. 1, 17, 1994. -25- L. Mandamus is the only adequate remedy for Richard Stephen Calkins when challenging a void order. Mandamus relief is proper in this case because the orders Mr. Calkins challenge are void, giving him no other adequate remedy. 16 1. Mandamus is the proper remedy for challenging a judge’s resumption of jurisdiction after disqualification and /or recusal. The serial void orders seem to be designed to re-establish the Hon. Mike Wood as the judge presiding over these parties and cases, even though he was disqualified in 2009 from presiding over the case involving these same parties. 2. Mr. Calkins will suffer immediate and irreparable harm. It appears that all the void orders beginning with Hon. Butts’ Sept. 2, 2015, order have but one direction: that of enabling the disqualified Hon. Mike Wood to resume jurisdiction over the parties and case he was disqualified from in 2009. Conclusion Due process requires that Mr. Calkins be able to conduct his case before a judge who has not already been constitutionally disqualified or who has not already been recused, twice, and yet both resume jurisdiction 16 Urbish, supra; McGrew, supra, In re Southwestern Bell, supra -26- over the same cases and same parties. The case of In re Hecht is instructive for the conduct of this continuation of the 2008 litigation involving the same cases and parties, over which Hon. Butts and Hon. Wood have previously presided: [O]ur judicial system is based upon the cornerstones of integrity, impartiality, fairness, and independence. In discharging judicial responsibilities, the judge must be governed by the Rule of Law, conduct a fair and impartial hearing, and dispense justice as well as equity under the law, according to the particular facts and circumstances presented in each individual case. In re Hecht, 213 S.W.3d 547, 565, 2006 Tex. Lexis 1340. PRAYER For all of the above reasons, Richard Stephen Calkins respectfully requests that this Court: 1. Call for a response to this petition and set a briefing schedule; 2. Grant oral argument; 3. Grant mandamus relief and vacate Hon. Butt’s Sept. 2, 2015, order; 4. Order Hon. Butts follow Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255 in effect on July 30, 2015, by serving the county clerk serving the statutory probate courts of Harris County with her order of recusal so that the county clerk may follow the mandates of the Tex. Gov’t. Code § 25.00255(l) in effect on July 30, 2015; and 5. Grant all other relief he is entitled to receive. -27-  Respectfully submitted, /S/ Susan C. Norman Susan C. Norman State Bar No. 15083020 P. O. Box 52518 Houston, Texas 77052 713-882-2066 713-229-8328 facsimile CERTIFICATION I certify that I have reviewed this petition and concluded that every factual statement in the petition is supported by competent evidence included in the record or in the appendix to the petition. /S/ Susan C. Norman Susan C. Norman CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE This document complies with the typeface requirements of Tex. R. App. 9.4(e) because it has been prepared in a conventional typeface no smaller than 14-point for text and 13-point for footnotes. The undersigned certifies as follows: This brief complies with the word-count limitations of TEX. R. APP. 9.4(i) because it contains 6,067 words, excluding all parts exempted by Tex. R. App. P. 9.4(i)(1). /S/ Susan C. Norman Susan C. Norman -28-  Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on December 1, 2015, a true and correct copy of this document was served on the following counsel and respondent: The Honorable Christine Butts Via Hand Delivery Probate Court No. 4 201 Caroline, 7th Floor Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: 713-368-7171 Respondent G. Wesley Urquhart Via Texas Efile P. O. Box 20415575 Houston, Texas 77235-5520 713-582-0803 Attorney for Carolyn James Phillip Calkins Strauss Via email phillip.strauss@gmail.com . Courtesy Copy to: The Honorable Mike Wood Via Hand Delivery Probate Court No. 2 201 Caroline, Suite 680 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: 713-368 /S/ Susan C. Norman Susan C. Norman -29-  APPENDIX 4 No.378,993 § PROBATE COURT MARYOLIVE K.~! § NUMBER FOUR f- 'i:t _{;;:· clerk to a judge of one of the other Hanis eo;I.iy,mfu~ .~ate courts pursuant to Tex.. Govt. Code§ 25.00255(gXlXB). A''i!liul;w ii~ IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that all costs Incident to this order are ~f!l~Y ,, ,,~; SIGNED this~ day of March, 2011 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. A Certified Copy Attest: 10/30/2015 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 4, Orders Recusal & Disqualification Page 2 of 4  APPENDIX 4 h. No.378,993 PAOBATE COURT 114 INRE: § PROBATE COURT ·'" ,,·; MARY OLIVE CALKINS, § NUMBER FOUR AN ADULT lNCAPAOTATED PERSON § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS RECVSAL ORDER day, the Court on its own motion finds that it is in the best interest of the ~use and all related litigation for the Court to recuse himself. It is ,~·-::". t~~~:r. therefoJ.'!'~;; . :!;i, ~:)t 1 "' ,ii, ORDBRE!i>.1tfult the Honorable William C. McCulloch recuses himself from 6!~;..., Cause No. 378,993 together wiili't!l·subdockets, if any; and it is further ~;_ ..; ORDERED that the H , f ;.:·· :C. McCulloch will take no further action in this cause except to refer this ca('{fl• p~jding statutory probate judge for the State of Texas. Pursuant to Section 25 of the Texas the undersigned hereby requests that the presiding statutory probate judg~ fq~ ~$tate of Texas, the Honorable Guy Iierman. assign a statutory probate judge to p~~~~l Signed Augyst .2010. William C McCuUoch, judge Harris County Probate Court No. 4 EXHIBIT I C -·~------------------------------·---------------------------------------------- Confidential information may bave been redacted from tbe document in compliance witb the Public Information Act. A Certified Copy Attest: 10/30/2015 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 4, Orders Recusal & Disqualification Page 3 of 4  APPENDIX 4 --· I 'j f'\'*, ,,~ • "\i' • :r~ COURT 12 • •... :.Ji [J I -;1g,q~:; () ~~ I ). CAUSBN0.~3 Ci~ !. JNRE: JNTHBPROiJATB r:: ) § § i:l MARY OUVB CAULKJNS § COURT #20F .I § § HARRIS COUNTY, TBXAS W"! I (;) r~ rl ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE en l\J I\ APTER Hli:ARING ~'~> c; 'l I I On March S, 2009 came on to be heard, the Motion to Recuse filed pursuant lo TRCP ISa I I .\ in the above captioned cause. 'The Court has considered the Motion, aU attachments thereto, and J. oil evidence presented, all citations of authority and arguments of~UIII!el. ~I~ :r. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Recuse be and is hereby GRANTJID. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED !hat the Clerk of the Court shall forward a certified copy of :·I~ this Order to: .I Presiding Judge Scoond Adminlstnltive Judicial Region ofTCJtas 'f 207 West Phillips, 3111 Floor . ; ~ Conroe, TCltas 71301 Pax No. 409 538-8167 I I I~ SIGNED this 5111 ofMarcll, 2009. :I I EXHIBIT If) --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. A Certified Copy Attest: 10/30/2015 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 4, Orders Recusal & Disqualification Page 4 of 4  Appendix 3 Appendix 3, Order Grant Motion DQ Wood Page 1 of 1  Appendix 2 1 Motion to Disqualify Mrir~h S /(Jn9 1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 1 OF 2 VOLUMES 2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 275123 & 378993 3 IN RE: IN HARRIS COUNTY, 4 TEXAS 5 DICK C. CALKINS 6 7 8 MOTION TO DISQUALIFY 9 10 11 On the 5th day of March, 2009, the following 12 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and 13 numbered cause before the Honorable OLEN UNDEWOOD, Judge 14 Presiding, held in Houston, Harris County, Texas. 15 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype 16 machine. 17 18 19 20 21 Edna Thornton Deputy Court Reporter 22 23 24 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 1 of 13  Appendix 2 2 Motion to Disqualify Mri rrh C) ?nn q 1 APPEARANCES 2 Michael Easton P. 0. Box 646 3 Richmond, Texas 77406 Telephone: 281 415 8655 4 Attorney for (Pro Se) 5 Susan Norman SBOT NO. 15083020 6 Attorney at Law P. 0. Box 806 7 Richmond, Texas 77406 Telephone: 281 232 7574 8 Sharon Gardner 9 SBOT NO. 02877400 Attorney at Law 10 1401 McKinney, 17th Fl. Houston, Texas 77010 11 Telephone: 713 658 2323 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 2 of 13  Appendix 2 3 Motion to Disqualify rvr~ rrh s ?nn g 1 2 VOLUME 1 3 Motion to Disqualify 4 March 5, 2009 5 PAGE VOL. 6 Eric Andel Direct Cross V.Dire By Mr. Easton 4 v1 7 Argument . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 1 8 Court's Ruling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8 1 9 Reporter's Certificate . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 1 10 Andel, Eric 4 v1 Movant's 1 Amended Motion 4 vl 4 v1 Record 11 Movant's 2 Motion to Quash 4 vl 4 v1 Record 12 Movant's 3 Order 4 vl 4 v1 Record 13 Movant's 4 Response 4 vl 4 v1 Record 14 Movant's 5 Letter 4 v1 4 v1 Record 15 Movant's 6 Letter 4 v1 4 v1 Record 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 3 of 13  Appendix 2 4 Motion to Disqualify M.:=Jrrh Ci ?nng 1 THE COURT: 275123, and 378993. 2 MR. EASTON: Movant would offer Movant's 1 3 through 6, without objection from opposing counsel. 4 THE COURT: Admitted. 5 MR. EASTON: I would like to call one 6 witness, ask him one question and let him go. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. EASTON: Eric Andel. 9 ERIC ANDEL, 10 having been first duly sworn, testified as follows: 11 DIRECT EXAMINATION 12 Q Justice Andel, handing you what has been marked 13 Exhibit 2. The title of the document is Motion to Quash 14 Subpoena and it's on behalf of Judge Mike Wood, Probate 15 Court Two. At the bottom Judge Wood requests that there 16 be an admonishment. 17 A I see that. 18 Q Signed by his attorney. 19 Is an admonishment a sanction, yes or no? 20 MS. GARDNER: I'm going to object to him 21 asking an opinion. You're the Judge presiding over this 22 case. 23 THE COURT: Sustained. 24 Q (By Mr. Easton) From your personal knowledge 25 then, not as a legal question, is an admonishment a Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 4 of 13  Appendix 2 5 Eric Andel - March 5, 2009 TJirPrt P.xfiminfltinn hv Mr Ef!.stnn 1 sanction? 2 A In what context? It's contextual. 3 Q If you're a party to a lawsuit or before 4 official proceeding or judicial proceeding, is an 5 admonishment a sanction? 6 MS. GARDNER: Object again. Mr. Easton 7 knows that his lay opinion isn't relevant. 8 THE COURT: Sustained. 9 MR. EASTON: That's all I have. 10 THE COURT: Any questions? 11 MS. GARDNER: No. 12 ARGUMENT 13 THE COURT: Thank you. You are excused. 14 Argument? Anybody else have anything to 15 offer? 16 MS. GARDNER: I do not, your Honor. 17 MS. NORMAN: I join the Motion. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. EASTON: Exhibits 1 through 6, very 20 narrow issue here. In January -- sorry -- February, 21 2008, as Easton Exhibit 3 demonstrates, you signed an 22 order disqualifying Judge Wood for filing a Motion for 23 Sanctions in the same case where he was presiding as 24 Judge. Judge Wood, as shown in Easton Exhibit 4, went 25 on in great detail to define what a sanction was and, Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 5 of 13  Appendix 2 6 Argument by Mr. Easton MArch S /()()9 1 interestingly enough, quoted the codified section 10.004 2 of the Civil Practices and Remedies Code, a Court may 3 "impose a sanction on the person, a party represented by 4 the person, or both," leading all the way up to 5 contempt. He then goes on in the pleadings in Easton 6 Exhibit 4 to quote this Court's order and he states that 7 Judge Underwood, when you ruled, got it wrong, that the 8 motion for sanctions he filed against the parties was 9 not in Federal Court but actually in the probate court. 10 He's correct on that. Exhibit 3 would be your order 11 granting on the same identical grounds. And in Judge 12 Wood's pleading, which has been identified and admitted 13 into evidence, he once again requests that sanctions be 14 imposed against Ms. Norman and in the same case where 15 he's sitting as the judge. 16 From the viewpoint of what the law is, in 17 the case of Thomas versus Capital, the Court writes the 18 least severe sanction should be the first sanction 19 imposed. Judges are free to admonish or reprimand 20 attorneys. It's part of the sanctions. You can 21 admonish. Bradt versus West backtracks that language. 22 Once a request is made for any type of 23 sanction, "any orders or judgments rendered by a judge 24 who is constitutionally disqualified are void and 25 without effect. In Re Union Pacific Resources." That Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 6 of 13  Appendix 2 7 Argument by Mr. Easton Mr~rrh s ?nnq 1 is reported at 969 Southwest 2d 427. 2 Civil Practice and Remedies Code also 3 defines admonishment as a sanction -- Chapter 10.004 4 which allows the Court the lesser sanction of 5 admonishment. 6 The final case, In Re Whatley, which is 7 the case that says as to disqualification, the motion 8 alleges Judge Wood is constitutionally disqualified 9 because he filed a motion to quash identification to 10 what he did hear, requested sanction. It is a 11 memorandum called In Re Whatley. Date is August 8, 12 2006, as reported in West Law 2257399. Identical 13 conduct. Recusal, disqualification. The Court of 14 Appeals said it could never be waived and every order 15 signed thereafter, if constitutionally disqualified, 16 would be void. 17 Without any further delay, I would ask the 18 Court to grant this motion because I didn't file a 19 motion to recuse. It's two different animals according 20 to In ReUnion Pacific Resources, 969 Southwest 2d 427. 21 I'm asking to disqualify based on constitutional grounds 22 for having filed a case against me and Ms. Norman. 23 You've granted that once. Your order, which was Easton 24 3, went to great pains if you recall it, your 25 Honor -- went to great pains to describe his conduct to Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 7 of 13  Appendix 2 8 Argument by Mr. Easton M.::~rrh ll ?nnq 1 be neutral, unbiased, everything else, but it said once 2 he asked for the sanctions and placed himself in an 3 adversarial posture, however inadvertent, he was recused 4 from the case. The Court of Appeals says you can't do 5 that. That's a request for sanctions, disqualifies you 6 from sitting on the case. It's not a personal attack. 7 I don't need a witness. The Exhibits speak for itself. 8 I want to thank you for coming to Harris 9 County. 10 THE COURT: Ms. Gardner. 11 MS. GARDNER: She is not taking a position 12 as to whether Judge Woods should be recused. She just 13 wants an expeditious trial. We just need to get to 14 trial. I have a ward who is elderly. We don't know 15 what her health, physical my client is extremely 16 concerned. 17 THE COURT: You join the motion. Motion 18 granted. 19 MR. EASTON: Thank you, sir. 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 8 of 13  Appendix 2 9 Motion to Disqualify Mr:J rrh s ;:wn g 1 STATE OF TEXAS 2 COUNTY OF HARRIS 3 4 I, Edna Thornton, Deputy Court Reporter in and for 5 the Project Court No. 2 of Harris, State of Texas, do 6 hereby certify that the above and foregoing contains a 7 true and correct transcription of all portions of 8 evidence and other proceedings requested in writing by 9 counsel for the parties to be included in this volume of 10 the Reporter's Record in the above-styled and numbered 11 cause, all of which occurred in open court or ln 12 chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record of the 14 proceedings truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, 15 if any, offered by the respective parties. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 . preparatlon . Reporter's Record lS of thls . $ I 07-- L"ta and 18 was paid/will be paid by 19 20 Edna Thornton, CSR 21 Texas CSR 1306 Deputy Court Reporter 22 Project Court No. 2 Harris County, Texas 23 1201 Franklin Houston, TX 77002 24 Telephone: 713-248-0745 Expiration: 12/31/2009 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 9 of 13  Appendix 2 1 EXHIBITS c; ?nnq Mr~rrh 1 REPORTER'S RECORD VOLUME 2 OF 2 VOLUMES 2 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 275123 & 378993 3 IN RE: IN THE DISTRICT COURT 4 HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 5 DICK C. CALKINS 6 MARY OLIVE CALKINS 7 8 9 10 EXHIBITS 11 12 13 On the 5th day of March, 2009, the following 14 proceedings came on to be held in the above-titled and 15 numbered cause before the Honorable OLEN UNDERWOOD,, 16 Judge Presiding, held in Houston, Harris County, Texas. 17 Proceedings reported by computerized stenotype 18 machine. 19 20 21 22 23 Edna Thornton Deputy Court Reporter 24 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 10 of 13  Appendix 2 2 EXHIBITS M~ s ;;nnq rrh 1 APPEARANCES 2 3 Michael Easton P. 0. Box 646 4 Richmond, Texas 77406 Telephone: 281 415 8655 5 Attorney for (Pro Se) 6 Susan Norman SBOT NO. 15083020 7 Attorney at Law P. 0. Box 806 8 Richmond, Texas 77406 Telephone: 281 232 7574 9 Sharon Gardner 10 SBOT NO. 02877400 Attorney at Law 11 1401 McKinney, 17th Fl. Houston, Texas 77010 12 Telephone: 713 658 2323 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 11 of 13  Appendix 2 3 EXHIBITS Mr:Jrrh s ?nnq 1 2 VOLUME 1 3 Motion to Recuse 4 March 5, 2009 5 PAGE VOL. 6 OFFERED ADMITTED 7 Movant's 1 Amended Motion 4 v1 4 v1 Record 8 Movant's 2 Motion to Quash 4 v1 4 v1 Record 9 Movant's 3 Order 4 v1 4 v1 Record 10 Movant's 4 Response 4 v1 4 v1 Record 11 Movant's 5 Letter 4 v1 4 v1 Record 12 Movant's 6 Letter 4 v1 4 v1 Record 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 12 of 13  Appendix 2 4 EXHIBITS M;:,rch s 2n09 1 2 March 5, 2009 3 PAGE VOL. 4 OFFERED ADMITTED 5 Movant's 1 Amended Motion 4 vl 4 v1 Record 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 2, Reporter's Record March 5 2009 Page 13 of 13  Appendix 1 PROBATE COURT iJ2 .. ' ()(')- IN RE: IN THE PROBATE COURT DICK C. CALKINS § NUMBER TWO (2) OF TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO 378,993 IN RE: § IN THE PROBATE COURT MARY OLIVE CALKINS § NUMBER TWO (2) OF Ui Ul § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ~ FIRST flj AMENDED MOTION TO DISQUALIFY MIKE WOOD ON J~ CONSTITUTIONAL GROUNDS ~ j TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: Q~ ~~ Comes now, Michael Easton, Intervenor in both cases who moves that Mike ~ Wood disqualify himself in both these cases and in support he would show as follows via this amended motion to disqualify: ... . ~( ~ THIS MOTION IS FILED IN LIGHT OF ADDITIONAL Fi,GT~:\ ~ ~g"1., m THAI CAME TO LIGHT ON FEBRUARY 12TH 200~~ ~ N ;:: I. THIRD PARTY ENTRY BY WOOD ;~ 1<1:\< ~ r~ . ~ N 1 ...... 1. On September 24 h 2008, Judge Wood filed what he attempted to'pass off as a motion to quash a subpoena. See Exhibit "A" annexed hereto and du)y incorporated Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 1 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 . herein by reference as if set forth verbatim. 2. This alleged motion to quash did more than ask the Court to quash a subpoena, it actually went on to insult counsel, impugn her integrity, and deliver arguments as to why the previous motion to recuse filed by Calkins should not be granted. In addition, this motion filed by Judge Wood also requested that Calkins counsel be sanctioned, and that a third party, specifically, Michael Easton who had no connection to the case be sanctioned as well for "filing" the motion to recuse. Wood also attached a Houston Press "article~' and adopted the piece as his argument opposing the recusal, and also attached a memorandum from U.S. District Court, replete with factual inaccuracies that he both provoked when Wood as the Trial Judge in cause No. 355095 In re Whatley, filed a motion to remand a case that had been removed to federal Court. 1 J 3. Realizing now what he has done, if given additional time, Wood will now be heard to say that the instrument that he filed was really a "deed- of- trust", and that it was not an opposition to the recusal at all. However, the law reaches no such result, for it is well settled law in Texas that it is not the title or style of the pleading that controls, it is the substance and content, not the label ( i.e. motion to quash) The Court read correctly, a trial judge who files motions to remand as the trial judge m case. 2 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 2 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 affixed by the draftsman that controls. Bryan v. G.E. 553 S.W.2d. 415 (Tex. App. 1977); Mercer v. Band 454 S.W.2d.833 (Tex. App. 1970); Smith v. City a,(Dallas 404 S.W.2d. 839 (Tex. App. 1966). Se.e also Buckholts State Bank v. Thall man 196 S.W.2d. 687 n.w.h. Squyres v. Rasmussen 296 S.W.2d. 977 n.w.h., Smith v. Kraft 9 S.W. 2d. 472 n.w.h. Thus, a motion, no matter what it is called is to be judged and determined not by its title or caption, but by its actual content and finally, its prayer for relief. State Bar ofTex. v. Heard, 603 S. W. 2d 829,833 (Tex. 1980);Criton Corp. v. Highlands Ins. Co., 809 S.W.2d 355, 357 (Tex. App. Houston [14th Dist.J 1991, writ denied). II. EASTON'S NON-INVOLVEMENT 4. The reason why Wood filed this purported motion to quash was in fact to contest the motion to recuse, as there was no need to drag Easton into the controversy as Easton was not a party to the suit, was not involved in the suit, and had no bearing on it until Wood and Keys made him a party by seeking the sanction of admonishment against him. Indeed, as Exhibit "B" annexed hereto and duly incorporated herein by reference shows, Easton has made the decision not to get involved in either of these cases. Sensing that this was not good enough, and just like his previous motion to remand in Whatley, see exhibit "C" annexed hereto and duly incorporated herein by reference, and his motion for sanctions as the Trial Judge 3 "-------------~-------------------------- --·-- Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 3 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 in the Whatley case against Mrs. Whatley, Wood could not resist holding back as a litigant in these cases, and made the deliberate decision to enter the case, oppose recusal, and seek sanctions. Thus, no matter how inadvertent Wood and Keys may now claim their actions were, Judge Olen Underwood recused Wood on these very same grounds on February 5111 2008, when Wood requested sanctions in a case where he was sitting as the trial Judge. 5. Although Judge Underwood's Order annexed hereto as exhibit "D" and duly incorporated herein by reference states that Wood filed this motion for sanctions in ~ federal court, Wood promptly corrected that error when in the l25'h district Court ~ '~ Wood clarified that Judge Underwood had gotten the venue wrong, that the motion I ~~ for sanctions was actuaiJy filed in the same probate case where Wood was sitting as ~ b the Judge. See Exhibit "E" annexed hereto and duly incorporated herein by reference. ~, 0~ Here, the action is the same, and the result is the same; Wood is Constitutionally disqualified for ( l) entering the case, (2) actively opposing recusal, and (3), requesting sanctions against Counsel, and a then non-party who intervened on equitable grounds based on Wood's request for sanctions. 2 2 The sanction of admonishment is the lesser of all sanctions that trial Court can impose upon being requested to do so. 4 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 4 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 III. JUDICIAL PARTICIPATION 6. In the purported motion to quash, Wood's participation goes one step further, when Wood raises the affirmative defense of judicial immunity to the motion to recuse. Although this affirmative defense would have no practical application to a motion to quash as there is no immunity from testifying when summoned-- as articulated by the United States Supreme Court in United States v. Mandujano (Absent a claim of the privilege, the duty to give testimony remains absolute.) 425 U.S. 564, 96 S. Ct. 1768, 48 L Ed. 2d 212 ( 1976), Wood's invocation of judicial immunity goes beyond the efforts to quash a subpoena, it resists the recusal, and as the law makes clear, if the Judge participates and resists the recusal itself, then he stands disqualified as a matter of law. Blanchard v. Krueger 916 S.W.2d. 15. (Tex. App. [ P1 Dist.] 1995) (Orig. Proceeding). (Active participation by the trial judge in opposing recusal can lead only to disqualification.) In this case, just like in Blanchard, it is not whether Judge Wood would have received the sanctions he requested, it was the fact that he, by written pleading requested sanctions, and thus 3 acquired a personal interest in the case. In addition, only a defendant would, or 3 There is no such thing as judicial immunity from testifying, and in fact the United States Supreme Court has indicated that a Judge when subpoenaed must testify absent a legally recognized privilege. See: Dennis v. Sparks l 0 l S. Ct. 183, 449 U.S. 24, ( 1980). i.e. 51h Amendment, Attorney/Client, Spousal, Physician/Patient. There is no 5 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 5 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 even could, raise an affirmative defense to any type of a request for relief, as judicial immunity is an affirmative defense as a matterof law. Guerrero v. Refugio County, Texas, 946 S. W.2d. 558, (Tex. App. ( l3 1h Dist] 1997). Thus, not content with· resisting the recusal only, Wood enters the cases, insults everyone he does not like, participates in the process, third party's in a non-party, raises affirmative defenses to the recusal, and then requests sanctions. If simply asking for sanctions in Whatley ,. was enough to disqualify Wood, then Wood has exceeded all expectations in Calkins by filing his purported motion to quash. 4 In addition, Wood publicly stating that he was going to call Judge Underwood in advance of a motion to recuse hearing undermines the very purpose of why the Texas Legislature changed the law and took recusals out of th.e hands of probate Judges. It was the evidence of Wood's use of creature known to law as the "judge cannot testify" privilege except in Mike Stafford/Fred Keys/ County Attorney folklore. 4 Because Judge Underwood did not specify on what grounds he was or was not granting the motion to quash as prayed for by Wood, the Court of Appeals will see the motion in its entirety with the knowledge that it was "granted", notwithstanding the body of case law that says it should have never been granted on any the grounds advanced by Wood. See Ludlow v. Deberry 959 S.W. 2d. 265 (Tex. App. [Dist.l4] 1997) ("On August 17, 1995, this panel issued an order sustaining point of error three holding it was error to refuse to allow the testimony of Judge Chambers. Accordingly, we abated the appeal and ordered the trial court to hold another hearing on appellant's motion to recuse during which appellant could question Judge Chambers.) 6 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 6 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 the telephone, among others, presented to the Texas ~egislature that prompted a change in the law that is being circumvented by Wood using the telephone to once again do what the law was intended to prevent. IV. FALSE TESTIMONY INDUCED BY WOOD? 7. Annexed hereto as exhibit "F" and duly incorporated herein by reference is Deputy Chung Gee's motion to quash asserting a new "privilege" created not at common law, but at County Attorney "school" called the "bailiff privilege" under "Rule 605". Thus, while a deputy sheriff who is taught at the academy how to testify in court when summoned-- should he become a bailiff and witness an event; the County Attorney now posits that Gee is entitled to the "bailiff privilege." Notwithstanding the sheer frivolity of Keys and his minions, the testimony of Gee is most disturbing for when asked on direct examination on September 25 1h 2008, if Judge Wood had directed him to seize the telephone of Calkins' attorney, Gee responded "NO" that he had done so ofhis own vo1ition. 5 Thus, the motion to quash filed by the County Attorney was either false and frivolous; Gee perjured himself of his own volition; or, Wood directed him to mislead the recusal Judge. In either scenario, Wood is involved in that either Gee testified falsely, Wood directed it, or 5 He further stripped himself of all derived judicial immunity by his testimony. 7 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 7 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 the County Attorney violated the same rules that all litigants must observe in Court by filing the motion to quash that contradicted Gee's own testimony. Indeed, as Exhibit "G" annexed hereto and duly incorporated herein by reference shows, Wood told Internal Affairs (of the Sheriffs Office) one story, while Gee, under oath told another. However, one thing is very clear, someone is not telling the truth. Thus, because Wood's testimony is crucial is discovering who committed a crime, his testimony must be had. 8. Annexed hereto as exhibit "H" and duly incorporated herein by reference is N iJj the e-mail sent by Marilyn Lewis, another subordinate of Mike Wood. On September f~ ?cl 25 1h 2008, Lewis on direct examination, and again at the direction of Wood, testified I IJj · falsely that she was contacted by the UPLC ( The Texas Unauthorized Practice of ~ l ~ Law Committee). This too is false, as Easton was serving under the district 4 chair tn ~ of that same Committee at the time, and became aware of Wood and Lewis' involvement when Lewis contacted the Committee, and in addition Lewis followed up with a fax on Mike Wood's stationary. Thus, Wood is not only hiding his own misconduct, he is directing th~lt his employees swear falsely when summoned to Court. Accordingly, if the judiciary is to remain and honorable institution, Mike 8 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 8 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Wood should disqualify himself and prevent any further inquiries in this case. 11 V. VOID PROCEEDINGS 9. In both criminal and civil cases, a judge's disqualification arising from a constitutional o r statutory provision "affects jurisdiction" and renders the proceeding a nullity. Davis v. State, 956 S.W.2d 555, 558 (Tex. Crim. App. 1997); Lopez v. State, 57 S.W.3d 625, 627 (Tex. App. Corpus Christi 200 l, pet. ref d); see Buckholts lndep. Sch. Dist. v. Glaser, 632 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tex. 1982) ("The constitutional prohibition has long been held to make any order involving judicial m ~ discretion by a constitutionally disqualified judge absolutely void,' a nullity."'). ~~ ~ Further, even if the parties consent, there can be no waiver of constitutional or b ~ statutory disqualification provisions. Ex parte Vivier, 699 S. W.2d 862, 863-64 I Oj (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); Lee v. State, 555 S. W.2d 121, 124 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977); U1 0' 1 see Buckholts, 632 S.W.2d at 148) ( [D}isregard of the constitutional disqualification is error that can be raised at any point in the proceeding 11) . No judge shall sit in any case wherein the judge may be interested, or where either of the 6 It is obvious to the public-at-large- that Wood and his entire staff take the "Leona Helmsley" approach to the law which is: "'Only the little people are compelled to obey it-not us." See United States v. Helmsley, 941 F.2d 71 (2nd Cir. 1991) (''Only the little people pay taxes ...)" 9 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 9 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 parties may be connected with the judge, either by affinity or consanguinity, within such ·a degree as may be prescribed by law, or when the judge shall have been counsel in the case. Tex. Cons!. Art. V. II. In addition on information and belief and as will proved up at hearing Judge Wood concedes that he had no jurisdiction in this case based on the failure of Crain, Caton & James to serve the proposed ward before dividing up the Estate. VI. CONCLUSION 10. On September 24 1h 2008, and despite not having any reason to do so, Judge If. t.Jj Wood entered these cases by (I) invoking an affirmative defense to the motion to ~~ ~ recuse, (2) bringing a third party into the case, (3) maligning and disparaging counsel I ~ and making false statements in his pleadings, (4) seeking sanctions, and (5) f Oj · participating in the recusal. Thus, no matter how deliberate or inadvertent these ~~· ~· actions w~re, he took an ad versa rial posture and position in a case where his personal ·lawyer, and his Jaw firm, Crain, Caton and James were involved. Accordingly he stands disqualified as a matter of law. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movant prays that Mike Wood enter an order disqualifying himself from any further involvement in these cases. 10 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 10 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Respectfully Submitted, /s/M ichael Easton P.O. Box 646, Richmond, Texas 77406 281-415~8655 EastPrQLaw@msn.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On this the 12th Day of February 2009, I certify that I served all parties including Mike Wood with a true and correct copy of this motion. Is/ Michael Easton I1 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 11 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas I Appendix 1 ! VERIFICATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF FORT BEND Before me, personally appeared Michael Easton, who after being placed under oath did afflrm·that he bas read the amended motion to disqualify Mike Wood and that all the statements contained therein are true and correct to the best of his infonnation, knowledge and belief. ~ ~ ~N Sworn. and subscribed to me on this the 121h day ofFebn1ary 2009. RHONDA M ClARIC ·~~,~~levu{._ MV Cornmlsllon Expires NOTARY PUBLIC Augusf 30, 2009 12 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 12 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 $EP-24·Z008 09:35AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Offica + T-056 P.OOl/019 F-25D FACSIMILE TRANSMISSION TO: Sharon Oamder Fax# (713) 658-1921 ·susan Nonnan Fax# (281) 605-1822 S~zanne P. Kornblit Fax# (713) 524-2423 FROM: Fred Keys Fax# (713) 755-8924 ·DATE: September 24t 2008 RE: Cause No. 378,993; Mary Olive Calldns; In Probate Court No. 2, Harris County, Texas Cause No. 275,123; Dick C. Calkins, Testamentary Trusts; In Probate Court No. 2, Hams County, Texas PAGES: 18 + Transmittal Sheet NOTICE 'This facsimil!! contains CONFLDINTIAL INFORMATION which may also be LEGALLY PRMLEGED and which Is Intended only for the use of the Addressee(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient of lhis facsimile, or the employee or agent responsible for the dcliver!11g or copying of this facsimile is sttictly prohibited. lf you have received this facsimile in error, please immediately notify us by telephone and return the original facsimile to us nt the address listed below via the Postal Service. Exhibit A Page 1 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 13 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas r----------------- - - -1- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - · - · Appendix SEP-24-2008 09:35AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Offica + T·056 P.002/0i9 F-250 No. 378 993 INRE: § IN PROBATE COURT No.2 § MARY OLIVE CALJQNS § HARRis CoUNTY, TEXAs -----------------~------------ No. 275123 INRE: § IN PROBATE COURT No.2 DrCI\: C. CALKJNS § TESTAMENTARY 'l'llllSTS § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO QUASI·J WITNESS SUBPOENA To the Honorable Olen Underwood, Presiding Judge Second Administrative · Judicial Region; The Honorable Mike Wood, Judge in Harris County Probate Court No.2, moves to quash the witness subpoena issued by Susan C. Norman on behalf of Richard S. Calkins. The subpoena purports to command Judge Wood to appear to testify in his O'Yn recusal hearing set on September 25, 2008, at 1201 Franklin, Project Court No.2, Harris County, Texas. 1 Ms. Norman has a reputation of abuse of both the Texas recusal statute and the federal removal process for purposes of delay and cost building. 2 Her faithful cohort, Michael Bitgood Exhibit A, Copy of the Witness Subpoena. Exhibit B, Judge Gray Miller's Memorandum and Order dated June 2, 2006, page 3, "A notice of removal may nor be fl.led again in the proceedings of In re Ihe Guardianship of th(! Person and £state of Perry Lee Whatley (Cause Number 355095), or any related mane!', without !.he prior written approval of the undersigned Judge." f.n. 2, "Norman and Easton have abused the removal procedures several other times in an effort to frustrate the guardianship proceedings. See e.g. Southwest Boston. Senior Servs.,l11c. v. Perry Lee Whatley, No 05·11881-PBS (D. Mnss. 2005); in Re Perry Lee 'Whatley, H-05-cv-2663 (S.D. Tex. 2005); Perry Lee Whatley v. Susan C. Nonnan, H·OS-cv-3622 (S.D. Tex. 200S). Exhibit A Page 2 of 19 Page 1 of4 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 14 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 ~EP-24·2008 09:35AM FROM-Harris County At~y's Office + T-056 P.OOS/OlB F-250 Easton, is also notorious for abuse of the judicial systern. 3 But, to his credit, Mr. Easton has SUn'ived many investigations by the Texas State Bar for the unauthorized practice of law and proudly announces business-as-usual. This court is somewhat aware of the sad history of the Wharley case, involving the same cast of characters (different clients, similar case). 4 In Whatley Ms. Norman and her clients were involved in multiple motions to recuse Judge Wood; removals to federal courts before Judge Lynn Hughes, Judge Patti Saris (Ma.ssachuseus), Judge Kenneth Hoyt (twice), Judge Vanessa Gilmore, and Judge Gray Miller; multiple mandamuses, appeals, and dismissals. The direct appeal of Whatley is pending in the Fourteenth Court of Appeals, Cause No. 14-06-00970-CV. Simultnneously, the Whatley probate matter is being re-litigated as a meretricious civil rights 5 claim in Sun Life v. Walker, In the 1251h Judicial District, Harris County, Texas, Judge Paul Murphy sitting by designation. Judge Wood's Motion for Final Summary Judgment based upon judicial immunity is pending in that court; and has been since August I 0, 2007. Now the antics resume. As much as Ms. Norman would love to make him so, Judge Wood is not a party in this case. He is the judge. 6 Like in Whatley, Judge Wood has done nothing outside his judicial capacity in Calkins. He has no lcnowledge of this case except in his capacity as judge. He is absolutely immune from suit. Pierson v. Ray, 386 U.S. 547, 554, 87 S.Ct. 1213, 1218, 18 L.Ed.2d 288 (1967); Srump v. Sparkman, 435 U.S. 349, 362-64, 98 S.Ct Exhibit C, Houston Press, June 26, 2003, "Bar Card -1'he antics of ilil ex-con raise questions about his parnlc~al role.'' Exhibit D, Order Recusing Judge Wood. Judge Hughes appropriately noted in tbe Whatley's flm attempt at removfll, "Because Whatley improperly removed this ca.se -- meretriciously claiming defensive c:ivil-rigllts violations in an application for appoirlttnent oftemponuy guardianship- it is remanded to the Harris County, Texas, Probate Court Two," "Judge Olsen is not a party to tbiB oppeal. He is the trial judge." In re /Jauer, 2001 WL S49027, 1 (Tex..App.-Hou. [lll Oist.) 2001, review denied) (Not designated for publication.) Exhibit A Page 3 of 19 Page 2 of4 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 15 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 S\P-Z4-ZOOB 09:36AM FROM~Harris County Atty's Offi~8 + T-056 P.004/019 F·250 1099, 1107-09,55 L.Ed.2d 331 (1978); Mireles v. Waco, 502 U.S. 9,11-12, 112 S.Ct. 286,288 (1991); Bradt v. West, 892 S.W.2d 56,67-68 (Te.x.App.-Houston [I Dist.),l994, writ denied). fn order to compel Judge Wood to testify regarding his mental processes in arriving at a judicial decision, Mr. Calkins must show extraor.dinary circumstances that would justify compel!ing the judge to testify. Tate v. State. 834 S.W.2d 566, 569-70 (Tex.App.-Houston [1st Dist.) 1992, pet. ret'd); Thomas v. Walker, 860 S.W.2d 579, 581 (Tcx.App.-Waco 1993, no writ) ("Regarding Judge Walker's ruling quashing the subpoenas duces tecum secured by Relator to obtain Judge Black's testimony and that of his wife at the recusal hearing, no abuse of discretion on Judge Walker's part has been shown.'"') Any inquiry into Judge Wood's mental processes in arriving at his decisions would be improper and would threaten the foundation of an honorable and independent judiciary. See Tate v. State, 834 S.W.2d 566, 569 (Tex.App.~Houston [Ist Dist.) 1992l writ rerd). When no substitute for a judicial witness is available, the demands of justice may require the testimony of a judge as a character witness. Joachim v. Chambers, 815 S.W.2d 234,238-39 (Tex.l99l). These are not the circumstances ofthis case. PRAYER Judge Mike Wood respectfully asks the court to quash the witness subpoena issued by Ms. Susan Norman on behalf of Richard Calkins. For the record- Judge Wood is NOT asking for sanctions against Ms. Norman, her client, or Mr. Easton. To be redundantly clear, this motion to quash is not an nttempt by Judge Wood to gain any interest, pecuniary or otherwise, in the Calldns cases. However, Judge Wood and his counsel would be remiss, as members of the Texas State Bar to ignore the numerous abuses described above and fail to encourage the court to use its inherent powers to admonish Ms. Noonan nnd Mr. Easton that this court will not tolerate abusive methods of operation. Exhibit A Page 4 of 19 Page 3 of4 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: I 0/30/2015 Page 16 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 l SEP-24-2008 09:36AM FROM-Harrii Cou"ty Atty'• Otfica T-056 P.OOS/019 F-250 Respectfully submitted, OF COUNSEL: MIKE A. STAFFORD -Fd~ Assistant County Attorney Harris County Attorney Texas State Bar No. 113 73900 1019 Congress, 15th Floor Housto1i, Texas 77002 (713) 755-3609 (telephone) (713) 755-8924 (facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR JUDGE MIKE WOOD CERTIFICATE OF SERV)CE I hereby certify that on: September 24, 2008, a true and correct copy of Judge Wood's Motion to Quash was served by fax and by certified mail, return receipt requested, to all parties of record. Exhibit A Page 5 of 19 Page4 of4 Confidential information may h~ve been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 17 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 ~EP-24·2008 09:36AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Office + T-056 P.006/019 F-250 Exhibit A Exhibit A Page6of19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 18 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 SEP·24·2008 09:36AM FROM-Harris County Atty'& Ottice + T-056 P.OOT/019 F-250 THE STATE OF T.EXAS W 1TNESS ~UBPO.ENA I SLIBPOENA DUCES 'TECUM PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PltOCJ~:.OURE RULE 176 CAUSE NO 371:1,!193 lNR.E: § IN 'f.HE PROBATE COURT MARY OLIVE CALKINS § NUMBER TWO (l) OF § H.ARRJS COUN'IY, TEXAS CAUSR NO, 175,!23 IN RE: § IN T'H.E P.R.OBATE COURT DICK C. CAl.KJ.NS § NUM.lflnf. TWO {2) OF TESTAMEN'rARY 'tRUSTS § HARR.lS COUNTYj TEXAS To: Any !'heriffor constable of me St:nte of Texas or otherp~.:~t:>un Hu!horiv:x! to ~erve and eKecute subpo~rnt..'l a..~ provided in Tcx.as Rule ofCivil Procedure l76.S. You are com:rnl!t1ded to summon Michael Jl!.ma Wood, Judge nfPrnbatc Court NIUQber 2 nf Rarris County. IexBs, 201 Fr:mklin. Probate Court No. l, Harris Co11nty~ T~as\ to appeu at J.ZOl Fnoldin, Project Conrt Nn. 2, Harris County, Texas, oo September 25, 2008, at 10:00 11..1n., before Honorable Olen Underwood, and give tt:.Stimony in tWs case on behalf of the Mnvom.and to remilin in attendll!lce from day-to-day untillawf\llly discharged. Co11tempt. Failure by any person without adequate e.n:u~e tu obey a subpoena served upon that person may be deemed 11 contempt of the court from. which th.: llnbpoeua ill ill Rued or a district court In the ~nunty in which the subpoena is scf'\lcd, and mtl)' be punished by tine or confinement, or both. Tex. R. Civ.t•.l76.8(a). DO NOT Ji'ATL to return this writ to tb.e Probate Cou1:t No.2 of Harris County, Texas, with either the attached officer's return ~:~bowing Lhe manner of cxe~;ution or the witness's signed memornndum showing that the witness accepted the subp<.Jt.~IW . ISSU.ED on September 9, 2008. Ry: .s:, ~ c. ,.ftJ ~ t/;:; SUSAN C• .NORMAN TeXrlR aar .Number 15083020 · P.O. Bnx 806 H.icbmund, TCX.a$ 77406-0806 Phone: 281~802-534! Fax: 281·605-1822 This subpoena wa."' issued i!.t Lht: rt:qUi.I'Sl of MovlUlt, Rlchnrd Stephen Calkins, whose attorney of record is Susan C. Norman, P.O. Box 806, Richmond, Texas 1740l'i-0806, Phone: 281· R02-S34l. Exhibit A Page 7 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 19 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 S£P-24-ZOOS og:37AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Office· + T-056 P.OOB/019 F-250 Exhibit B Exhibit A Page 8 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 20 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 S£P~24·2008 09:37AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Office + T-056 P.OOS/019 F-250 ,, ••••••. • · • ,,...,._ ..,...,., _ _ , _ _ _ _ t U~ ..... I VI V UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISlON § lNRE PERRY LEE WHATLEY, § CiVIL ACTION H-05-3860 Guardianship Matter. § § MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Before procet:ding with a case, a federal coun has a duty to examine the basis for its subject matter jurisdiction, on its own motion if necessary. See Torrtq v, Southern Peru Copper Corp., 113 F.3d 540, 542 (5th Cir. 1997). After considering the notice of removal, the numerous pleadings in this case, and the applicable case law, the court is convinced that it does not have jurisdiction to entertain this probate and guardianship dispute. Remand to the proper Proba.te Court is therefore appropriate, Removal in this case was improper. Susan C. Norman (purportedly representing Perry Lee Whatley) and Michael Easton removed thls case' from Probate Coun Two of Harris County, Texas by invoking the removal provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) and§ 1443(2). This stamte states: Any of the following civil actions or criminal prosecutions, commenced in a State court may be removed by the defendant to the district court of the United States for the district and division embracing the place wherein it is pending: (1) Against any person who is denied or cannot enforce in the courts of such State a right under any law providing for the equal civil rights of citizens of the United States, or of all persons withing the jurisdiction thereof; (2) For any act under color of authority derived from any law providing for equal rights, or for refusing to do any act on the ground that it would be inconsistent with such law. In re the Guardianship of the Pewm and Estate of Perry Lee Whalley, Cause Nnmber 355095. Exhibit A Page 9 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 21 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 SEP·Z4-2008 G9:3TAM FROM-Harris County Atty's Otfice + T-D56 P Dl0/019 H50 ~ . . . . . . . . . . . ,..,. w• w...,._,""'""' t-r\wi'VYttn.,;aH itt rm:u VO/Ut.ILVVO r-age 'L OT J 28 U.S.C. § 1443. Courts have construed the phrase ''under any law providing for equal civil rights" as meaning civil rights with respect to racial equality rather than the denial or abridgment ofbroad- based constitutional rights that apply to all citizens equally. See, e.g., Smith v. Winter, 717 F.2d 191, 194 (5th Cir, 1983). Of particular note, the Fifth Circuit has stated that "broad first amendment or fourteenth amendment claims do not satisfy the test, nor do claims arising under non-racially oriented statutes such as 42 U.S.C. § 1983." !d. Tbe provisions of28 U.S.C. § 1443(1) and§ 1443(2) do not support removal based on the allegations proffered by Susan Norman and Michael Easton. In their various filings. Nonnan and Easton explicitly and implicitly allege n host of claims-such as conspiracy, denial of due process rights, kidnaping, fraud> perjury-for which they seek damages under 42 U.S. C.§ 1983. None of these, however, touches upon racial equality. Moreover, the terms of the statute provide for removal by a defendant. The underlying state matter was an application for the appointment of a guardian of a person and estate. The parties to the guardianship contest were Perry Lee Whatley, Dawn Johnson Whatley, Jeanie Anderson, Robert Daniel Whatley, and My! us J. "Jimmy'' Walker, Jr. Neither Susan Norman nor Michael Easton were defendants in the guardianship or even parties. They therefore had no basis to remove lhe guardianship contest. Despite their own lack of standing to remove this ease, Norman and Easton challenge the standing of the parties urging remand. The court will therefore assume arguendo that there is not a properly presented motion for remand before it. Although a court may not raise the issue of remand on its own motion, it must nevertheless consider the existence of subject matter jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c); Ziegler v. Champion Mortgage Co., 913 F.2d 228, 230 (5th CiT. 1990). Federal jurisdiction is nonnally detennined by examining the face of the state court complaint or 2 Exhibit A Page 10 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 22 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 StP-24-2008 09:37AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Otfice + T-056 POll/019 F-250 .... - · - .................. ..,..,.,.,_""' lwfV\ollr,.JillVJ 1\ I I t I"'II~U UO/UL/LUUt> r->age ::S Of 3 petition that was removed. As noted by the United States District Court of Massachusetts in Sourhwe.sl Boston Senior Services, Inc. v. Perry Lee Whatley, No. 05-11881 ~PBS (D. Mass. 2005), the application for appointment of a guardian of a person and estate filed in the Texas Probate Court presents neither a federal question nor diverse citizenship of parties. As that court explained: Here, the Application for Appointment of Guardian of Person and Estate filed in the Texas Probate Court presents no federal question. In addition, there is no diversity of jurisdiction because all parties to the Texas Proceeding- Robert Daniel Whatley, Jeanie Anderson, and Petry Lee Whatley- were domiciled in Texas at the time the Texas Proceeding began. Dkt. 10, Ex. E. This dispute is squarely a probate matter. Probate matters are firmly committed to the province of state courts. Because this court is without subject matter jurisdiction, this matter is REMANDED to Probate Coun Two of Hartis County, Texas pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. A notice of removal may not be filed again in the proceedings of In re 1he Guardianship ofthe Person and Estate ofPerry Lee Whatley (Cause Number 355095), or any related maner, withoullhe prior written approval of the undersigned judge. 2 It is further directed that the order for mediation (Dkt. 105) is VACATED. All pending motions in this case are DENIED as moot Signed on June 2, 2006, at Houston, Texas. NonnAn and Easton have abused the removal procedures several other times in an effort to frustrate the IJUBrdianship proceedings, Set:, e.g., Southwest Boston SeniorServs.,lnc. v. Perry Lee Whatley, No. 05-11881- PBS (D. Mass. 200.5); /11 Re Perry Lee Whatley, H-05-cv-2663 {S.D. Tex.. 2005); Pen-y Lee Whatley v. Susan C. Norman, H-05-cv-3622 (S.D. Tex. 2005}. 3 Exhibit A Page 11 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 23 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 SfP-24-2008 09:38AM FROM-Harris County Atty'• Office + T-056 P.012/019 F-250 Exhibit C Exhibit A Page 12 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 24 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 FROM-Harris County Atty's Office + T·056 P.0!3/019 F·250 J~P-(4-2008 09:39AM .. ,I« •••.• ·:'If i · .·. j'·i .-::: .. ,_.f... I '' . l : ~ .'· ' : ~· • ' I t:A!.fllDA/t tiUSIC AA lrtDLit.' r:ruunliiU.Ol1Jt l.c~h fd>~nill prin1 ~t1.i-:lc llvt]lll,l~ur•t.ll11!1rwl ~ost Popular Bar Card v.......d i:~~J~<.JII:ll """' [0'ii;i:~.T,_;,cu7;~ ·-···-- The antics of an ex•con raise questions about his " lli;ht nlt~ndant went n!toi th" Ost<-ens in coun, pal'lllegal role !lrin&iGr, on t!'l:;lo •nd tribulation ror one nnd •!I n;r <:t>t.t:•nuillhn~l ·'> iliuJg~Jt.l:ll.lnJlacllf:( 71'1t nnincotpornted town ixup to its eJ!lo""' in youth rubllah•d on J~no 26, ~c.o~ Ull!>$. pov~fiY und crim~ • loc.tl ftn~d, musf< tru1 When he WliS in fedcrnl prison, Michael £nston studied the ··~ ll~r-'loi.ul~rttm~l Ht>U..Io~ Etll bk with ~k one -i· LdlJ.l;wt1:eJ!Mrt1•~r id Cbj)d ''11''s•cti~c I 1 ncM bt•stt • f'rt&: Stuff 5Ub><:rlbo I Jaw ond the Scriptures. Now Easton, who is nho :m ordained s..-rnr.~, Por the fim )'IO>r, Jl,Qby ll attorney for whom he wori~S, PQtijr ,,u Cl•mh~i H.~OW.trl~f ~'lltS..pe:Jo9i12AM name tlle winner a:nd rcwta detnils of ever'}' World Series. His ~ I0~4iO:Uh~.Pulh.ul~o ••U.~..Tho}>'.lnll Hyundai !!antra sports the bumper sticlcer "Real Men Lo"e Mon Sap ...... StOS I'M . -1> JWin~J!LEI!l!m.l!lilila:lv 1ll8!!]1t!Ull Jesus." Moil Sep ~c, 311&7 PM ' -) J\lltl:t.t.l.k!!!IWat.:11.i11ll.'·la.,'ir.»:~~ l'Je smokes clga~t \(;!6 as he ~lbhes victori~5 ovet his \eglll Mon!iep:>"', t:o91'M adve.n;aries with quotes from the Bible 1mdJungl1 8ook. -> H&:.l!llnn.Qijt.:JluliiU:lllC'I.!n..lln:WI.lltl'~tl'll'\" Mon Sl:p :>a, 6;o;s }'M wh.icb he Wlltehes time und ~sn.in with his fl....,.~ar-old lion. ~ lll:l"!:!Llol:cmntl.~lltll:N.1\'inUilU!tl>tb<-&m b~.lim::tlC~nt:Jkv "How d~licious," he says With a grin, lllkin{l a drag on bit~ ~'l'l Scp llh lt>::t:> A.' ~Q.;),:,~rull.livJ:~ttli.MQWWtd sports minutille. One thil"4J he is not is an attorney. Alld Tua Sep ~s. 8:46AM therein lies the problem fat this very active patnlcgnl. Recent Articles by Zo~ C;Jrmlcha@>l Some attorneys say Bust on steps out oftllc bounds of tho -> JIAd!;tcd duties a p.mller;ul <:~tomarily pqrfol'tllS, st:tin; ru; a lawyer Tit& eatic:r of All CX-CC>ll r.llsa qYCIIiolll Abo \It Ail pnolo11ol lOIO himself. They uccuee him of hiding behind his pun1eg3l status, pulliog srunts that would )Selll.ll authentic Mtorney "!> T~;ll.Ql.hudl. N•wdrilhqu~d try•u!J follow r-.c:k>l•ll"llationt Ill disci:pllued. T...;uaty http://www .houstonpress.com/2003-06-26/news/bar-cardJ 9/23/2008 · Hance with the Public Information Act. Confidential information may have been redacted from the document m comp Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 25 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 I S£P-Z4-ZOOB 09:38AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Office + T-056 P.014/019 F-Z50 I! Easton di,misses the complainIa, ~:lyiDx.'he :lltOrncys whu criticile hire simply resent his ability with the l11w, ~nd that -> ~hun~ 1 Seven Afri.. n-1\mttbn ;i' b triod uul lor then•·· City Slin(OrotiU urilltenm thi.t ya>r, None oflhc"' Ij 1 ! he does nothing unelhlcal. l__::~~~~~------·-··-~---..····-··-.....J •' llndex SERVICES l While th~: arguments continue, tho TeXll~ Supreme COUrt'H £m;.olu)'IO<"nt I Mu,.;lo Spa•m Study Un~ uthorized Practice of Law Committee i~ delving once V i~w .l.d I VIe·" 5i t~ ll£ain into tQmplninu 11bout Ellston •· for the 14th time in 14 \ ' \Ullio:l! V,> i<:~' Contra! M•rkot ~U.Stt.~t:i.llit;J;<~:IWlu~l\5 View Ad I Yi•:w ~1lO: )'llllrs. He says he's been cleared of IIJ1)' wrongdoins in ll'u: first 13 inquiries, nnd rem~ills confident th3t it will happtm ~l:3ln. Ycur cu\oo to 1.1ndcl'l[l1lllins; 1\)0's proof~ rtf ~ru , I(W.,~ H.;ntl\)· Drtvers Who 'w al\t • futur• ! i Vlcw ad 1'llf!YI 'inJ! j !'11;ami New "J1m,~ l'hd~l5t.1'~miiJ~riuo.aUllun.OlsMt.l\\\;lnoor. r.tm.'ro! I!Jiston KnOW>i the l:~w as well as mtmy attorneys, and ~orne les~l :1Ssi11nments be has been in,·olvtd in hflve lumed ill to A ptiiCn 'lilY fnd bookrUfll(y r.C\d p~hicbn dftW•l· urc'" r..."'V.·RabcN M.-dle School • C•••tlvo VI~ .. ,,d ...,u I Vt("ff Sit• I precedcnt-senin~ ca~ law. E.a$ion, who ~~ys ht i~ 11 Puerto l Ric:Bn who legully changl·d his nama, is often cr~ss nnd unltind abom th~ buckground of others. 1 I He'~ called one black ;sdvcrsary "homeboy" and a 'while opponent "trailer tru~h." In a cuurt ple:~ding, he recently ref~rn:d to uhcrift's deputy liS "Bam<1y Fife." But evl!n his httr.lh1!5t critics cnll him brilliant. They ql~o say he b unethia~lnnd rllde, ;,nd tho! he ovl!r$teps the boundaries between paralejlal and attorney. Some or hL• earlier erpeliel\ca with the I~~ow Cillnc at tilnc• l ! 3 crimin~l defendant. l ln 1990, he wns convicted und sentenced to three yean for felony theft of 01 diomQod rint: from Gordon's Jcwaler.; in Westwood Mall in 1986. ~j Why you !11C>vld 1•• \O ~ He p!ended guUly in 199910 mal.:int falsi! 'tatetncnu to :~xovemment al\eney and trying to dceoive a b~nk to i lulaw Ill(!; · rd let Y'l'l ~·ko credit lot th~ obtain~ loon. Easton had sued In an unsuccessfcl ~ffon to block the state from rc••oldng his private ln\'C:Stl~;~~tor's liet:nse in l99l- I violin 11 lt.k•v on my ! ln 199Q, Ea>lon reeelwd two :Z7•month prison terms after J>l.,•dinc guilty to bd!1kruptcy l'rilud Rnd froud L ne..cl<." Maf~ Pc:noNtS ~>':- involvinll student louna. He also had his &t.lte probation n."Voked. Three ye.:us c11rlier, a judge had found he NOW CLICK THIS I acted in bad railh in pursuing :m Involuntary b~nkruptey action against o la.ndlo!'d, and Easton Wl\5 hit with ~~ of tlouctan L~vndt p,my about $92,000 In sanctlous. Ad lr1d1'JC. 1/lr\ual Job Folr Olsltol Jukobo• Six years ago, U.S. District Judg~ Oa\'id Hittner forbade Ernily foU&JIIlC> 'It ~: ~ ~ ~ ·r~:Mm 1.. I but hi:~ client izi. liim bocl<. th•y Ollllldn'l funltbe rillbt Wlln!< 1,~, .. Ja~~.:. ·!' DDQp ll.l.CJ.! Ei~tNUll.A.CDnliiADtilicl.Quo:. cr.,y. ,.,h, tUot f!i 10' t) I i JohD.!Carl Buehc,11 law p~~nner or ·£.~· ! lni/IICI.ti" C&UJ tti\Ulot (1,7'96\ 1 LaCroix's, said no one fights ---····~~·!."~-::... '19,~--~----l JOb•t•.OtOj >4•11 •nl.fnorlnm""' tl.~l71 : Easton, becaus.c btwyers nnd even i judges 3re ufrllld of him. 1 "H., hs~ sued sc"'eral judJJes nnd a l hllndful of attorney&," Buehc uid. · '1 have 23 published lawsui~ in i \ which he Wi!S a plniotiff, Rvecyone \ £uro~ ,,'11 b•'; <~>• ono b~ln~ : is scn:red to do Mything nbour L•.·!~.w~r rn~~~.•o.. . .. : ll[m, because they know he will sue them. He cause.: so mucb misery. He keeps people tied up In rourt for years." But Easton said he h:~s chllnged, nnd hasn't filed a lawsuit in ten ycW'1i. Mls client Ia tbe on<: doing the ~ulnc, he Sill d. Ill oil!< ·~ 1Unitey1g Of :the; l'Q1:tprfru; B11clle and l..aCrollc look their oornplaini.S to the UJ:Uuthorized ~'UII Sap~' Qrlll AM legal pr11~ce committee, aecusing Easton of repn:senting "~' U.fi.Aln:t:.tllltA.i~oUul\Qn..ll!s.lhc,lJ'lnd Mon sq, u, ,:;:os I'M clients in court, ndvisine cllen\s and otherwis;; handling th~ duties of lnlnttomey ralfu!r th.lr.a paralegal Buche s~id his ·> .I!Jwou:llRW!lll.Uuli.llclr.ll>..R~lwilll Mon Slip lt2. Sllrli'M firm hAu been "Inundated with the rnost vindictive, •P~~~R~ Mol'l Scp 2:, t1tl8 I'M emberrnsslng iUld anprofes~lonal correspondence and •\• DlllP.UUl'.!l.u.t.:Chi!Jt:..I'JJil"lin.llt:~;,tlDlUI!IiJ::iw pleadings." He added, "I expact to bc&ued for addressing thl~ M"n SCII :n, ''03 PM i.qsue and 1 routinely receive throats to be suc:d And ·? IIJ:\'C.oJtUttml Upnnl'a..\~luf,Uitl~l:l:tu'.Jll>r.d il):.ll\ln:k£ulL~.Il.w sanctioned for everything under the sun.." flrl S..p ;y, Ulll:t .ut •) J:lll':l..JIJ:l:.Wr..'>)!c;k.'l~:JIH d..Cho.Ut:nllllll. :rdv~I\~U.uu ZtmTt•n ""'n"'II~:I..M'lUill:Iltli Tu~ Scp :13, 11:46 Alii the lqwye1·. ~I must CQ'Ife.ss that I am deeply uoubled by what I hwe Rel! ..nt Articles by ~CHI Carmlch&lll witnessed and by the (act that Mr. Ea$ton Is permitted vis·il· -• liat..CIU'J.I vi!! Peter Riga, with seemins impunity, to hll.tliSs and ploguc The utica e( an I'JC-clll!. rallie q'IICJtioos about his pttl'll~&~l role the Hou. ~llllll Exhibit A Page 15 of 19 http:/lwww.houstonpress.com/2003-06-26/newslbar-card/2 9/23/2008 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 27 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas ...-----------~-------· -- - · - ... Appendix 1 StP-24-2008 09:39AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Ollica + T-OSS P.O IS/0\9 F-250 In n document submitted to the t'Ommittec'~ chllirnlnn, Rig~ denied the a~\lsations Olguinst him and Ellston. JU~" 3ald that I s"'co Alrian·AIIIcricoA ~itlltrid out for tho CiiV SUn~•rc\11:• drilltulllthi< )'CJir. Nob! olth•m nt>dc the •quod. ·r...,, I everything in the plcudings tllat le11ve his office is filed _;.;th ~l==============:::! his consent Riga wrote th11t Easton does refer to himself~ 1\'nlir•ll; AU;'.!H'Ofl\1 o[ l!oo:n. Orl•on Wllo Want A "Mr. Buclie <1nd LaCroix obvi~u•ly st:uted u fire they c..n't p\lt uyw~m H•rh\,. Fu•urr out, and now they grieve me; Riga ''Tote to the committee. '1i~"' M I \1\Jw Site ~11 \dl•i N.:" ·nm,:" "In f~eL, Mr. Easton bu h:~.d hour~> upon hour!i oF ~musem~:nt Tho 1.1l•l'f oiii!11Yliiii\.CI(Jmt>n .Gi>.•emt.•hu"'' -CC,t/1 '01 A ~~'3~1 ~:;,..~d bi1nkr.,l) lcy c:; 1\' t kc.~r chhl BO•JI!:Ir-old Mtdl • . ~ Vl ew Aa I v; • ..., Site humor to play along with them." .~Ytvlr.e' Adoption AdYocltei, In<, Vttw Aoutd !~t to know m~: 'l frequently rderrex profwor said. "Whether or not anyone wnol..\1 to eall him art It is .ttnother m:~tter." Vlmtol ~o~ f~ lr or,rt~ Jl.j)(obl>x Schuwerk said \hM l!.oston b probably unable to become an attorney because o! hls uiminal record, and i!hc had been :l.ll :~ttorncy, he likely would have been di5barnd for en&asing in earlier felonious activity. He snld th•n what pn111lega\s do iiJ'IU what lawyers do i6 marl o..oc.~ K~l;:.ri!'AIIn 0\l.!'llDAll tiUS!C 1'10\IEC xn.r:; IA:HUI (\JU.,.Ifl• U t•JlOI1UHOtS:: :.tAACH "l!>kib(X 2 !lcl(e!s for SID lhru Sr.v.lflmDcr R3rd Most Popul~.­ Bar Card v!.iwoa Continued from page 2 ~--·-- " ' - - · · - - """t I Houston PreSs Inside-rs I l lACroix was !ntreduious that the committee's invoatigatot 1j • Loco! food, musl; lnd nttW!lo bl.1s,t;$ • frH Stuff I ' would play down Easton's condu<.-t; the attorney llllid there io SUbj :ruM<~. ~blctn.l:v.hSoll·~d.U.lll.l'l.ltl. TU1: S~p "'l!, Ua:!I'M .,) ti!#,.S:pA.wnf.O.~t~: "He is making an ;~bliolutc mocllery of the civil judicial Tile Sep 23 1 1;0t PM lC)'Stern,' LaCroix llllid. '1'1lis isn't 11 situation whete u couple -) ~tn .rvttr StUJ Plvrr~ Tu10Scp :13,1;16 l"M of lnwyers get th(!ir feelings hurt. We are litigator.;. I'M this is ~ J.clll:fPm.'l..Oul)'~\l.l:l.ulllll.!~dl over the top," .l:i!ID.Il»~dlli~~ll.roAI:tt~:o.u.ap 23, ""35 I'M ·:) '.(IIC.J.m:~~oc:t~.llf..H\IJ:I'ii:ooc..Ik~.nll,llii:Ol:Jlc:. Easton said he has been open ~bollt not bcin~ a lawyer and lrulll.\tl:)' Tuo S«i> ll3, '-til PM that his detractors ~m~ the bypocrltllli. ~> .l:l.l:lvill&~ltliiU'iJnJII:.I'nn~ M!ln Sep sh:, 6:oal'M '1My thiD,ts they wish lhey could ~ay." Easton 5lld. "I thll.\k I hold "P a mirror to lawyers, They see lhr.:m~~Clves in me, IUld "' •I\ they don't like what they see." 'tvc Sep 1131 UlJ>O AM ·> l'!!!J T!t:v!r'Xo 'Wf:.cl!. ·rlm:l'; Um! Cb>llMII:ell. nnd Pl!tt:bay !lunnlts •l'r<.vi.,u< l'nnc J. ~ 11 .___'!dd\yJillltD'i l__ 'l>e..,s...;ep:.....,..:.:.'.:.'n-~_AM _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _..J Exhibit A Page 17 ol19 http://www.boustonpress.comJ2003~06-26/news/bar-cardl3 9/23/2008 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 29 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 S~P-24-ZOOS 09:41AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Off1ce + T-056 P.OIS/019 F-250 Exhibit D Exhibit A Page 18 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 30 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 ~~P-24-2008 09:41AM FROM-Harris County Atty's Office + T·056 P.019/019 F-250 NO. 355,095 § IN RE: THE PERSON AND § lN I?ROBATE COURT No. 2 § ESTATE OF PEAAY LEE W.HATu;Y, § OF § A PROPOSED WARD § RAmus COUNTY, TEXAS § OlU>.ER oN MonoN TO RECUSE AFTER Hl:..Aru:NG On January 24, 2008, carne on to be heard, 1he Motion to Recuse filed plll'SUant to 18a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure in the above captioned CllliSe. The Court has considered lhe motion, its attachments, the eourt's file, all evid~:nce preseoted. and all citations ofauthorlty. The record indicates that, throughout the long and tonvo luted history o.f this case, the Honorable Michael Wood's bahavi.or performance as a judge has been thoughtful, un.biased, and impartiaL He has been a well-informed. weD-prepared neutral jl-lrist who has done nothing on the bench that would wsrrant recusal. The moving pru:ties have gone so far as to sue Judge Wood in federal court and attempted to subpoena him to testify in 1hat a.ction. The Harris County Attorney responded oa behalf of Judge Wood and filed a motion to quash the subpoena which included n request for sanctions. Once this request ~~u IJ:Uide, Jud&e Wood was placed in an adversarlal posture. however inadvertent, towards the movan1s and effectively re~ed him from sittiDg ou :further proceedings W. this case. Therefore, IT 1S ORDERED that the Motion to Recuse be and is bc:reby GR.ANtE.O. IT IS FURnmR ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a certified copy of this Order tc: .:.'•,;!, . ..•••• ~ Presiding Judge .· }:.-:~....-~· ~ .... . .._ . Sccor1d Administrative Judicial Region of Texas " i ?: ~ ·. 301 N. MAin, Suite 228 ~ ~ ,, ;.: '.... 'y"'r• ,..,- -:. Conroe, Texas 77301 Fax No. 409 538-8167 .\:~~~:;-.:~--~::::~ ' SIGNED this eit?r~ Exhibit A Page 19 of 19 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 31 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Law Offices of Peter J. Riga, Ph.D., J.S.D., J.D., LL. M., St.D., Th.D., Ph.L. [Emeritus 2003] Attorneys & Counselors at Law ' P.O. Box 52518 Houston, Texas 77052-2518 EastProlaw@msn.com (281) 415-8655 (Direct Ring) Michael Easton ·August 27: 2008 :~ ! ~ 't '91 Susan C. Norman in c:;;g~ G') r'fl ::0 ..,=:: • .. Attorney at Law n:r: ~ N ;:.:o g~ ) -~.. -.J r"l;o P.O. Box 806 ~n ~~· ~ CJ(f! ;<~ (•,.;·. ~ Richmond, Texas 77406 . . . ~ ..-t, C1' ----~-~----!._• In Re: The matter of Calkins In Probate ourt N~ 2 tof Hf:ffris County, Texas; Cause No. 275,1 , Cause No. 378,993 l Dear Ms. Norman: I want to thank you for offering to associate me as your legal assistant in the Calkins matter in Probate Court 2 of Harris County, Texas. I must, for the following specific reasons, decline your offer at this time. 1. This is Mike Wood's Court. Judge Wood hates me with a passion and his hatred has spilled over to members of his staff. As an example I attach this e-mail allegedly sent by people who are supposed to act and represent the Supreme Court of Texas with honor and integrity. In this e-mail it is clear that Judge Wood, his staff, Ray Black, and of course "Jimmy" Walker, are all conspiring to have me "barred" from the Courthouse(s} for what appears to be no more than a degree of competence on my part. I am still deliberating on whether to reopen my lawsuit against the Unauthorized Practice of Law Committee ("UPLC") based on this email. 2. In 2006, Judge Wood -who by his own admission did not serve me with a show cause order as required by law- issued a bogus writ of attachment to have me arrested and brought before him on the spurious charge that I sent him an ex-parte email e-mail to his private e-mail address. The writ contained something unknown to law, in that it Exhibit B Page 1 of 5 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 32 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Susan C. Norman Page 2 August 27, 2008 carried a "no-bond" prov1s1on. Under the Texas Code of Criminal Procedure a "no-bond" provision is reserved only for those who are charged with "Capital" murder in which the death penalty is sought. What is worse is that years after the fact, Fred Keys, the Judge's lawyer, finally appears with the "show-cause" and as it turns out, the returns show that I was never served with the "show-cause" at all. Wood and Ann Greene directed the Harris County constable's office to my home, to my neighbors, and to my place of employment. These constables did not hesitate, while acting at Wood's direction, to tell my neighbors that Peter and I were "wanted" on serious criminal charges, which caused the neighbors to question whether to allow their children to play with my children any further. As it later developed, I never sent Judge Wood anything at all via e-mail, and the e-mail was the work of Ray Black, one of his preferred ad !items. What is sadder to me is how two members of the Court of Appeals assumed the worst, wrote the worst, and allowed Wood to get away with this without a shred of evidence beyond Wood's fabricating the evidence, the accusations, and the results, all by himself. 3. If it were not for Justice Paul C. Murphy {Senior Chief Justice, Retired, 141h Court of Appeals) and the Honorable Olen Underwood, a man whom I treasure, what would have happened to me? I would have spent time ln jail (unlimited), been humiliated in front of my family, and suffered untold collateral consequences for nothing more than a well- placed lie, engineered by the regulars in Probate Court 2. 4. If Mike Wood - and his staff, at his direction -can't break you down with the above, he simply cheats by tampering with the Clerk's file, and in turn the Appellate Record in an attempt to avoid appellate review of his atrocities by removing documents from the record so that if the case is appealed, the offending matters would never be in the record. ExhibitS Page 2 of 5 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 33 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Susan C. Norman Page 3 August 27, 2008 We worked hard in Whatley, got the Legislature to change the law, and succeeded at getting the Senators and House Members to take a long hard look at Judge Wood; some even went public with their outrage. The·law now works- to a degree- and it will work as long as honest judges refuse to act, or refuse to direct their staffs to act as Mike Wood does at Probate Court No. 2. As a "reward" for all of our efforts, I had to face the UPLC for the 1Jlh time; you have had the State Bar all over you based on Whatley; while Wood- and Black and Walker since they are the friends of Mike Wood - have escaped any type of criminal or disciplinary actions. Peter lost the friendship of a dear friend, a sitting federal judge. Judge Wood's ability to succeed in calling the Court of Appeals and other Judges is morally disheartening to me. The judiciary as a whole, operates solely on the public trust. When it comes to Mike Wood, however, it seems to me that it cannot be trusted. There are no rules, no laws, and no ethics or morals that are observed in Probate Court 2; just a run-away "train" that takes from the elderly and then passes it around to Judge Wood's friends and supporters. There might come a time when some brave public official such as Ken Madigson, or Don DeGabrielle might say enough is enough, and finally hold Wood, Walker, Black, and the regulars in Probate Court No. 2 to account. At that time, in a court of law- just as did Pat Gregory, Wood's predecessor- they might understand that there is only so much the public can stand, or will take before the "axe" drops on them, as they have so often dropped it on lawyers they don't like, people who object, or simple support staff such as myself, for doing their job. Probate Court 2 Deputy Sheriff Gee's behavior last week directed at Rhonda Clark and you is a continuing example as to why I will not step foot in that Court, as Mike Wood has shown that he will- and can direct his staff in Probate Court No.· 2 to- say and do anything to anyone to make Mike Wood's agenda stick. Lying is n9 obstacle at all, given what Gee told his superiors at the Sheriff's office. Exhiblt B Page 3 ol5 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 34 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Susan C. Norman Page 4 August27, 2008 If the Calkins matter is ever assigned to another Court such a.s Judge McCullough, a man who fears God, I will be happy to assist you and go to Court with you again. However, as long as the case is in Mike Wood's court · you must accept the fact that you will be abused, humiliated, grieved, and held up to ridicule. I cannot be put through that again by Wood and his staff. I might also add that you should keep an eye on your purse, satchels, and other things while in Probate Court No. 2, for it is not beyond them to plant contraband on you or your parcels, and then have you charged with a crime. They did it to me, and they will do it to you. Thus, take a witness, take a media reporter, contact the media with all your evidence organized, and make 0~ sure that someone is with you at all times when you are in there. Qj ~ I wish you the best, and I will pray that the Lord give you the grace and ~ strength to get through this one ,as well. I ~ ~ ~j \ Ui \' ~ /me Exhibit 8 Page 4 of 5 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 35 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 SBC Yahoo! Mail- ~b@tjbl~~klaw.com Page I of I ~SMALL BUSIN~!~ Print - Close Window Subject: FW: Mlct>'ael f.-sron ana the unautt>or1~ed prvctJce Qf law cata: Wed, 7 oec 2005 l6:5B:07 -0600 F.-om: ~-;,, llaillyn (Prvbetli CQUJ'tS)"'-<~.harrn,D<.ui> rlb@rlblacklaw.co~ ~-------~--- .... ''- '·· FYI Md ooold~~" '"'""' thiS :Jimmy Walk"" woll? =="""'i""""'i='===~=--------------··------- ) Marilyn -----original MessaQe- From: Gunnels, Meg (Probate Courts) Sent: Wednesday, December 07 1 2005 ":56 PM To: Lewis, Marilyn (Probate COUrts); Wood, Judge Mike (Probate court) Subject: FW: Michael Easton and the unautt'lorized practloo or law -----Original Message--- From! Martha P.Jillng ?C [mallto:mfaillng@mind:;pring.comJ Sent: Wedl'lesday, Oecember 07, 2005 11:10 AM To: Gunnels, Meg (Probate Courts) Subject: Michael Easton and the unouthorlzed prl-<0~,.,.----··•""•-•-~n-~- . --.. . - Exhibit E Page 3 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 46 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Constitutional Disqualification or Recusul? II. At the outset, the intervenors' best-ca~e scenario does not void Judge Wood's judicial imrnunity. The intervenors must show lllut he acted with "~omplete absence of all 1 jurisdictlon," not that his orders were subsequently declared void. This they cannot do. 12. The intervenors do not support willl authority their blanket legal conclusion that Judge Underwood's ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSF. ArrnR HEARING is a constitutional disqualification. The facts and much authority support the position that it is nor. 13. The saga began on August S, 2005, wben Daniel Shea, Ms. Whatley's former attorney, issued a witness subpoena to Judge Wood. to " ... appear before Hon. Russell Austin sitting by assignment in the County Probate Court at Law No. 2 ... on the 9th day of August 2005 at I :30 pm, to testify as a wimess on behalf of the Party in the above styled Probate Action concerning a Motion to Recuse . . . .''l Su Sommers v. Concepcion, 20 S.W.3d 27, 42 (Tex.App.--Houston I 14th Dist.J 2000, pet. denied) ("Allowing recusal in every situation where a party decides to sue the judge, or threatens to call the jndge as a witness, would result in unwarranted recusal and provide an easy means of recusing a judge.") (Bold emphasis added.) 14. On August 9, 2005 Senior As5ist1Ull County Auomey Frank Sanders filed a Motion to QuliSh the above witness subpocna.4 The prayer consisted of one :u:ntence: ''WHEREFORE PREM1SES CONSIDERED, movant prays \hat the subpoena directed to him in the above cause be quashed and an approprim1 sanction entered pursuant to Chapter 10 of the Texas Civil PracUce and Remedies .Code:" (Emphasis added.) This issue is important enough to restate Chapter I 0 here, with comment: Mir1/~J "· Waco, $02 U.S, 9, 11-12, 112 S.CI. 286, 288 (1991). Exhibit A, Witness Subpoena to Judge Wood. Uithibit D, Motion to Quash. Judge Wood's Reopon..,1o lnterveno"'' Motion to Vac01e ... Page 4 of 14 ------~---·---·-----·-----·- ---·-------·--~--·---·-- .. Exhibit E Page 4 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 47 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 § 10.001. Signing o! Pleadinl)s and Mo1ions The signing of a pleading or motion as required by the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure consdtu!es a cer1ifieate by tho signatory that lo the signatory's besl knowledge, information, and bclicl, formed after reasonable inquiry: • (1) the pleading or moUon is not being presented lor anv improper purpose, including to harass or lo cause unnecessary delay or needless increase in the cost of litigation; (2) each claim, defense. or Olher l~al contention In the ploading or motlon is warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivotous argument for the extenslon, modification, or reversal of axls!ing taw or lhe establishment of new law; (3) each allegation or other factual contention ln the pleading or motion has evidentiary support or, for a specltlea~y ldan!illlld allegation or factual contention, Is likely to have evidentiary support after a reasonabl& opportunity lor lvrthar investigation or discovery; and (4) ench denial In the pleading or motion of a factual cootention is warranted on tha evidence 01', lor a spedlleaHy ldentlned denial, Is reasonably based on a lael< olln!ormaUon or belle!. 10.002. Motion for sanctions (a) A party may make a motlo~ lor sanctions, describing the speciffc conduct violating Soctfon 10.001. (b) The ccurt on ~s own lnHiativa may enter an order describing the specific conduct !holnppOars to violate Section 10.001 and direct the alleged violator to show cause why lhe conduct has not violated that section. (c) The court may award to a party prevailing on a motion under this section the reasonable &xpensas and attomey's lees incurred in presenting or opposing the motion, and i! no due tiNigence is shown the court mey award to the prewUing patty aH costs for !noonvonlence, harassment, and ou!·OI·pocket expenses: incurred or caused by the subject litigation, Comment: Under subsection (a), the prayer to the Motion to Quash· merely asked for "an appropriaJe sanction" without describing any specific, violative conduct. Section (b) is not applicable because no sanction was imposed. Likewise, (c) does not apply because no sanctions were imposed. fi 10.003. Notice and Opportunity to Respond The court shall provide a patty who Is the subject ot a motion !01' sanctions under Section 10.002 notice pi the aUegations and a reasonable opportunity to respond to the allegations. Comment: There nothing in the record to indicate that Judge Austin noticed Mr. Shea, or anyone else of a hearing on a sanctions allegation. Judge Austin granted the motion to quash on August 9, 2005, !he same day that it was liled, without mention of sanctions. Senior Assistant County Attorney Fl1ll1k Sanders submitted an Order to Judge Austin that Judze Wood'• Re~ponwe to lntel'\'tnoll' Motion to Vacate ... P•ge S of 14 Exhibit E Page 5 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 48 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 he had "approved as to form." Judge Austin signed the submitted Order, granting the motion to quash without sanctions.~ . § 10.004. VIolation; sancllon (a) A court that·determines that a person has signed a pleading or motion In violation of Sec1ion 10.001 may impose a safldlon or~ the person. a pat1y represented by the person, or both. lbl Tha sanction must be limited to what is suffiCient to deter repeU!ion of the conduct or comparable COndiJCI by others simUarly si.tuated. • {c) A sanction may Include any olthe following: (1) a directive to the violator to perform, or re!Taln trom pertorming, an ac!i (2) an order to pay a penalty into courtj and (3) an ortlor to pay to the olher party the amount or \he reasonable expenses Incurred by the other party because of the f~lng ol the pleading or mo1ion, includlnQ reasonable anomey's fe-es. (d) The court may not award monetary sanctions against a represented par1y !or a violation of Section 10.001(2), (e) The court may not award monetary Sllllctions on its own Initiative unless the court issues Hs order to show cause before a voluntary dismissal or s011Jemen1 of !he claims made by or against the party or the pally'& a!lomey who is \o be sandloned. · (f} Tho liing ol 11 general denial under Rule 92, Texas Ruleo ol CivK Procedure, shall not be deemed a viotalio~ of this chapte-r. Comment: Judge Austin had sanction options under section (c) (I) & (2), which he , could have approprla.ttly impo~ without granting Judge Wood any pecuniary or property intere.~t in the case. In fact, Judgr Austin impos;ed no sanction at all. I! § 10.005. Order ,,i I A c~urt shall describe in an order Imposing a sanction under this chapter the COllduct the court ,q ~ ; has determined violated Sect!on 10.001 Blld explain the basis lor the sanction Imposed. Comme:nt: Judge Austin's Order Glllllting the Motion to Quash does not mention sanctions. No sanction order issued. § 10.006. COnHict Notwl!hs!anding Sec!lon 22.004, Government Code, the supr8me court may not amend or adopl rules in conHict wllh this'chapler. Exhiblt C, Judge Austin:s Oxdo:r Granling 'udgc Wood's Motion lo Quash. Judge Wood's Ruponse to lntervenort' Motion to Vacate ... J>a;e6of 14 Exhibit E Page 6 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 49 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 15. "The Texas Constitution disqualifies a trial judge fyom sitting 'in any case wherein he may be interested.' TEX. CONST. art. V, § II. Similarly, Texas Rule of Civil Procedure l8b(l )(b) requires a judge to disqualify himself from any case in which he may have "an interest in the subject matter in controversy." However, the interest of a judge, in order that he may be di$qualified, must, in general, be a t!ircct pecuniary or property interest in the subject matter oflitigation."6 16. On September 9, 2005, Susan Nonnan and Daniel Shea filed the now infamous MOTION TO DlSQUAUFYIRECVSE. THP.. Ho~ORABLE MIK£ Wooo. 7 The Motion is less than candid, listing as "Irrefutable Fact' in pamgraph 3: "At the concllision of the molion, Judge . - Wood, the named 'movant' requested that .sanctions be imposed. Thus, Judge Wood, by praying for ajftrmatil!e relief in the form of sanctions, did mor~ than request that his subpflena be quashed. He acquired a pecuniary interest in the case and cast himself as an adversary to the Whatlejls." Full disclosure would have been that Judge Wood's attorney pmyed for," ... an appropriate sanction entered pursuant to Chapter 10 of tbe Te!t!'S Civil Practice and Remedies Code." . Any sanction that awarded Judge Wood a pecuniary or property interest in the case would have.been inappropri~Jte and thus was not prayed for. 17. On June 1, 2006, the Fourteenth Court of Appeals remanded the case, s fmding .that Judge Burwell had not ruled upon the September 9, 2005 MOTION TO DISQUAI.ll'YIRECUSI! THE HONORABLE MIKE WOOD. After remand, on June 6, 2006, Judge. Burwell denied the infamous September 91b Motion.9. In re Whatley, 2006 WL 2257399, 1 (Tex.App.-Houston [ 14 GulfMaritime Wllre~OIUe Co. v. Towers, 858 S.W.2d 556,558 (Ttx.App.·Beaumont,l993, wril dt:nied.) Exhibit D, MOTION TO DISQUAUFYIRECUSE THE HONORABLE Mli<:E WOOD. lnfarnous, because this i& 1he one motion·IO·recusc referred to ludge BllrWI:.IIlh41 was not iuled upon, remailled pending. and caused the St:p'lt'ln'oa l~", 01:\o'm U'\ m6 ~11:>11! H~ -lW5,'tn6tl!' 1mlt6 'tly rodrt 'Wt>Pht> b!: llec\~n:ll voi(l by the Coun of Appeals onlunc I, 2006. /11 re Whatley, 2006 WL 2948230,4 (Tex.App.·Houslon [14 Disl.],2006, no pet.). Exhibil !l, Judge Bwwcll's Order. Judse Wood's Response to lnt~enors' Mo!ion to Vacale •.. Page 7 of 14 Exhibit E Page 7 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 50 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Dist.], 2006, no pet.) (SUPPLEMENTAL Mf.MORANDUM OPINION ON REIIF.A.RJNG, August 8, 2006) ("Since our opinion issued, the pending recusal motion was denied by Judge Gladys Bwwcll.") The intervenors now argue on direct appeal that Judge Burwell erred because she had no assignment and did not hold a hearing on the motion. Judge Burwell's decision to deny the t motion is currently pending before the Fourteenth Court of Appeals. Judge Burwell's ruling is l I on direct appeal from Judge Wood's final judgment in the guardianship. 10 Her ruling would be l the law of the case if upheld on appeal. Cou.rt ot Appeal a ol! Tex~oe, Houston (Uth Dht. .1. Pen:y LBB and oavn J'oh..noon What ley, ,Joined by Kicba.~l Ea.•ton, Appella.at 11 , l'tylua oJIIV\1!:8 Y. 'IIIALXER, JeAnie A.rl.daraoa, Robert Daniel tthatley. and. Mich•el J~a Wood, Appel tee a. No. 14•06·00970-CV. I I i Hay l4, 4001. I ; I Prcn the Probatl! Court ~o. 2 of Harria County, Texas Trial Court •caua:e Ho. ! Appellants• Opening Briat ! Michael loa•tcon, P.O. BoK Sl5U, Houston, Tcxo111111 7'7052, '71J~'771-U9'4, EilstProLaw I ..,.n.e~. l £li~jg!,. P.O. Box 5:2518, Houaton, Tlltx.lR '710S:Z, '7llM1'7lwB494, &iut:ProLaw l l e.t.&ll.COIII, Th~•, ttle argurw.ante udc by Appellees in the Probate Court t.h.at. Judge Bu~ell denied the pendiDCJ I\Otiau to di•quality .Judg• Wood on June ~. '200fi, !.all b1aed on four gr~•r 1. IA.clc of juried.iction. •• tbe caeo ..... e on dinrct appeal -.ad bad ao't bal!!l &bate~ or roaa~d. Cll: Vol. ~. (Kay 11, :ZOOJ). OOOfiO, 1in_,, 4:-5; :z. Uck ol ju'"iedictloD, ba1ed on tb~ hck of an order ot a••igDNent; 3 • .:7uclge Bu.rwell'l o.m pleadinqa, juc1ic:ial ad11i.aeiane, ed her .Jffidavit ltati.r.q that her iavolYttfMAt io tbh ca•e tenain.ated ~ Nov~r J, 2005, and that ohe waa not reappointed to baar any ot.haT N.t.tarJ. CRt Vol. l I"•Y 11, 4:001), oooo,a- 0001 o~; and, 4. Tbi• rx s»rto AJld unngtJr:ed bearing vaa •cooducted• by a ju.dge who vao. without an order ot .aaoi.gna.ent: ·vao "conducted• in Claar l...llke City, 1'•xae, out.eide of the COWlty aaat aa def.J.ncd by thie CO\Jrt iu H•llon S•rv.1r:c• v TotX"h• Ro••, •upr• C'l: Vol. l, (Hay 11, 2007), OOOJOJ .. OOOJ01. (County 1111•t i• t.he pJAco .where tho couJHY courtllouect 1a Jocatsd, •nd no other pJ.•c•f) (f'Nl&J PNl8. Thi• i1 yet ;mothtn; e.)l:~ple of Guy Hennan'o inapprOpriate •ctiona: r:alling Judga Burwell alld. direct.in9 her to go to Clear 10 A pro\»1~ cmitr m j'lldg1rLn\ u f~m\ if i\ tootlmi'lt\1 dl!.~Q of Mid i\ dtt\\ivt of 1ht U!ut m contravened question for which that particular part of the proceeding was brought, even if the decision does nol fully and f111ally dispose of !he entire probate proceeding. Fischer v. WilliaMs, 331 S.W.2d 210,213 (Tc •. l960}. Jurlgc Wood's Response co Intervenors' Monon ro Vee a~ ... Page 8 of 14 Exhibit E Page 8 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 51 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 J .· '. ' W-e. City~ Tau,, •rnJ th~h rule: on • ~t~l!lttC!t' wit.hQ~t qiY~I\9 not..u;~ to •rtyo!\rr, and dter SfUI flhd her att!da\IH in the cat•, ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE An'ER HEARING 18. Judge Underwood issued his ORDER ON MOTION 1'0 RECUSE AFTER HEARING on February 5, 2008.n The purpose of this analysis is not to challenge the ruling. Since February 5, 2008, Judge Wood stands recused. There is no appeal. The purpose of this analysis is 'twofold: (!)The language of lhe ORDER is not as clear as is represented to this court by lhe intervenors; and (2) the intervenors • application of the ORDER to this case is their same "void'' argument. 19. Like the decision in Whatley,'l Judge Underwood finds that Judge Wood".•. has done nothing on the bench that would warrant recusal." 20. The second paragraph of Judge Underwood's Order gives the reason for granting recusal and is best broken down sentence-by-sentence. a. "Th~ moving parties have gon~ so far as 10 sue Judge Wood in fed~ral court and artempled to subpoena him 10 t'stif:y in thai action." It is true that the moving parties, intervenors in this ease, have sued Judge Wood in federal court. However, there is nothing in the record lo show that Judge Wood was subpoenaed to testify in the federal cases. The only witness subpoena issued or quashed was the August 5, 2005, Daniel Shea witness subpoena discussed in, 13, above. Mr. Shr.a subpoenaed Judge Wood to testify in the hearing to recuse him (Judge Wood) on August 9, 2005. II t!Xtrlbit F. O!uJ~R ON MO'TIOII'l'O REcuSilAFTI!R Hl!ARINO. ll In " Whalley. Not Reported in 5 .W .3d. 2006 WL 2948230. 2 (Tex.App.•Hous. (14 Diil., Ocrober 13, 2006)) Allhou~on n:lacor's argument i1 that tile September 9"' d,i"lualificuion ponlon of the recu$.01 motion waJ not referred, we find no merit to lhatvgumcm. The September 911> motion w.. referred to rile l'l'esiding Judge and wu assigned to Judge BUJ"WCClTiing 11 pany1. Tl>trefor<:, despite lh«t Ms. NorrMn and Mr. She.o's modon wu li!l<;d a modon for constitutional disqu>lificationlrecual, iu submnce w;u instead a motion to recuse under rule 18b. Juda:e Wood's Raponae to lnterveoon;' Motionl.o Vacate ..• Page lO of 14 Exhibit E Page 10 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 53 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 'I would be l Rb(2)(a): "his impartiality mighl reasonably be quutirmed;" which is ground for recusal, but- not disquali[ication. 21. The intervenors have presented no evidence (other than llieir motion) to support their claim that Judge Wood has any pecuniary or personal interest in Mr. Whatley's guardianship. And, it is obvious that Judge Underwood finds that Judge Wood had no pecuniary or personal interest in the case. 14 Without such interest, there are no grounds for constitutional disqualification. 22. Why is the distinction important? A trial judge may be removed from presiding over a particular case because: (I) he is disqualified under Article V, section 11 of the Texas Constitution; (2) he is disqualified under Section 74.053 of the Government Code; or {3) he is subject to recusal under ci vi! procedure Rules 18a and 18b. In re Union Pacific Resources Co., 969 S.W.2d 427, 428 (Tcx.l998)(orig. proceeding). The grounds and procedures for each type of removal are fundamentally different. In re Union Pacific Resources Co., 969 S. W.2d at 428. "When a judge continu~ to sit in violation of a constitutional proscription, mandamus i5 available to compel the judge's mandatory disqualification without a showing that the relator Jacks an adequate remedy by appeal. . .. This mnkes sense, because any orders or judgments rendered by a judge who is constitutionally disqualified are void and without effect." !d. Conversely, "the erroneous denial of a recusal motion does not void or nullify the presiding judge's subsequent nets. While a judgment rendered in such circumstances may be reversed on appeal, it is not fundamental error and can be waived if not raised by proper motion." !d. This is precisely why the intervenors directly appealed Judge Burwell's Order denying the same Judge Undorwood's OROI!Il o~ Mono~ TO REcuse AFreR HEARod)coiCJ U..~ lhrou&)>o<>l !ht 1MB .IIHl CMYOMtd hiJiary of lhiJ c-, 1M H01>1>r.abJe Mit~! Wood'.t behavior perfonnance u a judge lw been lhoushtful. unbiased, and impllnial. He hu been a well· informed, well·prepared neutnl juri•t who tla• done nothing on lhe bench !hat would wamnr rccU$GI." Judge Wood'• Response to Intervenor>' Molion to V•catc ... Page II of 14 Exhibit E Page 11 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 54 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 September 9, 2005, MOTION TO DtSQllAUFYIRECUSE TllE HONORABLE MIKI! WOOD. Their direct appeal is pending, sec above, p. 8. Application to Sun Ufe 23. The intervenors continue to skirt the issue. "Complete absenc~ of all jurisdiction'' means that they must prove to this coun that Probate Court No. 2 has no subject matter jurisdiction over this contested guardianship case. Otherwise. absolute immunity applies.'~ It docs not matter how many orders issued by the probate court arc subsequentlydcclared void. Orders are not "void" until a higher court says so. In re Easton, 203 S. W.3d 438, 441-442 (Te;.;, App. - Houston [ 14 111 ] zoi:J6, no pet.) ("In his first issue, relator [Mr. Easton) contends all of Judge Wood's aforementioned actions and orders are void because several motions for recusal were still pending against Judge_ Wood. As we have previou.~ly noted, Whatley's motion of September 9, 2005, was unresolved at the time Judge Wood issued his order of February 7, 16 2006.") The facts in the Brandt case are suilingly simile.r to this case. "lnhus, the question is not whether [Judge] West acted improperly when he signed the specific order complained of, but whether he had the jurisdiction necessary to sign an order of that kind, i.e., a show-cause order, in the case. He clearly did. Signing a show-cause order-even a void one-in a case before him is an nct within a district judge's 'jurisdiction,' as that term is used for judicial immunity purposes. Therefore, regardless of the motion to recuse. West acttd within his 'jurisdiction,' as zhatzerm l.J used in judicial immunity analyses, when be signed the sbow~ause order." " Stump v. Sparbr.Dn, 435 U.S. 349, 362·64, 98 S.CI. 1099, 1107.()9, SS L.F.d.2.App.-Houston (J Diu.},l994, ...-it denied}. Judge Wood'• Reoponse to lntcrvenou' Motion to Vacate ... Page 12 or 14 .·. Exhibit E Page 12 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 55 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 24. The intervenors have never established how Judge Wood, under !he facts of this ·case, violated any ~pecific con~titutional right or how his acts 17 were objectively unreasonable. In determining whether an official enjoys qualified immunity, the court asks (1) whether the plaintiff has demonsuated a violation of a dearly established federal constitutional or statutory Tight and (2) whether the official's a~tions violated that right to the extent that an objectively reasonable person would have known, 11 Conclusion 25. The intcrveRors' Motion to Vacate !ll!erlocUiorv Order ?f Dismissal wjtiJQut ~ is further response lo Judge Wood's motio~ for final summary judgment. In their motion the intervenors do not offer any new facts to sbow that their claim under TEX. PROBATE CODE§ 671 has ripened. The intervenors' do not support with fact or Jaw their conclusory notions interpreting Judge Underwood's ORDER ON M0110N TO RECUSE AFTER Hti.AIUNO. Neither the words "disqualify" nor "disqualification" appear anywhere on the four corners of Judge Underwood's ORDER. The intervenors asked for di$qualification. They got recusa!. In any case, even if their fanciful inll:rpretation prevails, it does not matter because their best case does not defeat either absolute or qualified immunity under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Prayer 26. Judge Wood reipectfully asks th1: court to grant final summary judgment, and for any other relief to which he may be justly entitled. " Judge Uoderwood'J ORPI!R ON MOTION TO Rlle\JSil Al"''l!ll HI!Ailll'&houl the long tnd convolu~ his10ry of lhis cas.e, the Honorab!<> Michael Wood'& behavior performance u a judge has been thoughtful, unbia.sccl, and impl.l\ial. He llu been • well- infwmed, well·psepat~d neutral juri11 who has d011e nothing on lh• bench thai wopJd ""''TITDI r~l." !l /{opt v. Pt/ur, 516 U.S. 730, 122 S.C\. 2508, 1$3 L.Ed.2d 666 (2002); srt o/so Be/Ira• v. City of El Paso, 367 F.Jd 299, 303 (5th Clr.2004). Judge Wood's Rupo~U to lntcT\Ienono' Motion 10 Vacat¢ .• , Page 13 ofl4 ----~---~~-------- ·i,, ;.;: Exhibit E Page 13 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 56 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 Respectfully submilted, OF COUNSEL: ~~~ FRED A. iEYiJie MIKE A. STAFFORD AssisUlnt County Attomey Harris County Auomey TeJtas State Bar No. 11373900 I 019 Congre~s. 15th Floor Houston, Teus 77002 (713) 755-3609 (telephone) (713) 755-8924 (facsimile) ATTORNEYS FOR JUDGE WOOD CRRTIF1CAIE OF SERVICE l hereby certify that on: February 12, 2QOR, 11 true and correct copy of Judge Wood's rl Response to Intervenors' Motion to Vacate Interlocutory Ordc:r of Dismissal Without Prejudice ¥~ has been ser~~ed by certified mail, rerum receipt requested, to aU panics of record. I 0j ';j ~ 1 I Qj 0~ ~ Judae Wood's Response t() Intervenors' Motion Ia V~~<:ate ••• Poge 14 of 14 -·-·----·------. ~-----""~---·-- Exhibit E Page 14 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 57 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 T!!E STATE OJ! TEXAS TO ANY S!mRJJIP Oil CONSTA.BLI! 01' 'l'Hl! STAT! OP 'T!!XAS Oil OT!ll!ll. PI!R.SON A\lll!OPJZ!;O 'l'O Slll\VB SUIIPOI!NAS AS PJI.O'IlOllill}lllUU! 176.~ T.R.C.P. WITl'IISS SU!Il'O&N'A CAUS! NO.lll,09l In Ro: Gucrd!lllship of 11\e Pmon Md !!rtalll o!PIII'I')' Leo WhAUII)' IN mE COUNTY PROMT:S COVR.T AT LAW N0.2 HAIUUS COUNTY, T!!XAS YOU ARB HEIU!BY COMMANDED TO SUMMON: B'ou, fvlll11 Wood, Judi•• Pl'!lbah Co an No.1, nd lndtridually B•rrl• Couuty Famlly Law Cantor, llU C••CNt An., e" Floor, Bouft4o, TX 1'!00l-UB9 l.n 1>6rru Cowlly, Teow, IIIII wbo II ~·ted rn m{d. wilblu Q~e hunrlr.O.rdly milu of lh• Coul1bouoc of Hmil C01111ly, Tau, iP wbi<:JIIbo above 1uirll pendina ttt wbo may bo 11:>\lllll lrithit~IIICb d!mucoat tho timo of O!o hwlll& to appell' before Hon. Ruucll AU$1ln lilting by a•l&nmtnl illt!wo County ProO&U Cowt ll Low No.2, 11 U ConJ!!W, Houi!Oll, TX 77002 in and fbr a.m. Co0111ty, on lilt~~~~ day of A~1"112005 't 1:30 p111, to tostH\r u • willlos. on bel:roff of tb• Po.ny !n 1l!t abovo •tylod P!Obato A¢11<111 oonc..,.lns 1 Mollcn 10 llcov,., lltacbtd bonto u l!.rhlbi: "I." Tho law lllao provides for co!llltilllt!onal dirqualifi~:ation when bo w a ~ary hrtero.~t lD tho 01.r1eorot of • c.aso.w 10 aul!i!IO rrom doy to dayunlill&w!ulty d\a¢hl:pd, 00 NOT PAn-to rerum thlt wrl! !o •l>ld Coun, with ..tum llloreon.abowlng!h• marmec of IXOCIRI¢n. Wllnau my omoltlli811&tut11 thlslht ~y of~' lGO$ li.equ61led by; Oonl.t J, Shea ( , Attorney at Law " l9lBWutB.ellS!IIIot ~~ HoUIIOll, 1'X 71002 By:._..<.~.-;..;__.;,.;;.;;..:L..........; __ Dwol l. SheA TBNII!\6JBSQ (Iuuod lo nc,ord•noe !o T.R.C.I', 116,4) ., ··=· =··· A CERTlF!ED COPY ATTEST: " FEB 12 2008 BEVERLY7B:::-.-:K;-:A..;;.U:::l'~M:-A'"i~N,:..,c='o::.:u:..:n!~y;,CI,...er"'"k- Harri' County, Texas Exhibit E Page 15 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 58 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 No. 355,095 IN RE: GUARDIANSHIP OF nm § IN PROBATB COURT PERSON AND ESTATE OF PERRY§ LEE WHA'TI..EY § § NUMBER. TWO OF § § HAJUUSCOVNTY,TEXAS MOTJON TO OVA,§H S!Jl!POENA To the Honorable Judge of Said Coun: COMES NOW Judso Mile~ Woad, Iu; tho trial jud~:o, any Inquiry Into hi• l'llenlal procem• would bo lmpro~ 111d wo11ld lllreaten lh• founda1io111 of Ill! i.ndllpfmdllllt lllld honorable judiciary, See U.S. v. Morgan, 313 U.S. 409, 422 (1941); Cltiun: to Pmtrrn Owrrton Park v. Yolpe, 401 U.S, 4021 420 (1971); Br-111'/y ~. U.S., 46S P.ld 743 (S 111 C!r. t97:t), The party tbal terved lhc su'bpollll6 on Movant h~ neither •lleaed nor proven III)Y crxtnordlnary cin:Ul'llllancet that WO\lld juallfY ccmpelling movant to tll$llfY. IV. Cue l~w olc61'!)' boldolhat a judge's tes~imouy aho~ld never 'bo compelled wnan my 7·240 (Tex. 1991); Tat•"· Sr~t-, 834 S.W.2d 566. 510 (Tex. App. -Houston tV'""",-,;.' ~rd), A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: FEB 12 2008 BEVER'L Y 8. KAUFMAN, Counry Clerk Horri1'County, Teltas · Exhibit E Page 16 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 59 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 ',• .. WHB!l.BFORB PRBMJSES CONSlD!!lU!D, movant proys !hat tho l!llbpoena dlreet•d lo him in the above ceuJa bo quashed and Nl appropriate 1.\lltlloll entered pur1N41ll to Chapter HI oftbe Teo 1-larrit Collllty Auomey ar.Uf~ l'ra.nlc Sanden SBN maasoo A.Nia!&l)l Co~~t~ty Al1omoy 1019 Con31'n Ave., If' Floor Houlton, Texa1 77002 {713) 7S5·7961 {713) 7$$·8924 (Bl( A CERTIFIED COPY AITEST: FEB 12 ZOOS BEVERL Y':'CB~.""K,.-:-A-:-:U-::cFMc-:A~N""','""c:-ou-n-ty-::C::-Ic"":'rk- Harris County, Texas Exhibit E Page 17 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 60 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 I ~~ ' 1 NO. 35S,095 lN RB: GUARDIANS!UI' OP Tim IN PROBATE COURT PERSON ANOBSTATEOFP!RRY U!EWHATLBY ~BRTWOOP JWUUS COUNTY, TEXAS BE rr RBMEMBHJU!D thtt on tbo data bmlnbolaw w;iuea tame on for he arias the Motion to Qua&b Subpoena torv6'4 on lucl&o Mike Wood, and tho Court bllving APPROVl!O AS TO JIORM: I MlKB STAFFORD Co!lll1y Anamoy 99999939 By1~~ :PiJSandcn !IBN mmoo A11lrtant Co11111y Auomey 1019 C""greu Avenuo, 1511\Ploor Houaton, Tcxu 71()(11. (713) 755-7961 (713} 7.1$·89:14 fu A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: FEB 12 2DD8 e: BEVERI.Y KAUFMAN. County Clerk HarTil County, Texa.t Exhibit E Page 18 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: I 0/30/2015 Page 61 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 PROBA-T£ COURT t:1 NO.m,c9~ IN lfE: THE PERSON AND ESTATE IN THE PROBATE COURT OF OF PERRY LEI! WHATLEY, HARRJS COUNTY, TEXAS A PROPOSED WARD. COUl!.T NUMBER (2) TWO MQIION IQ lllSQUAL(l!Y/RECUSJ!: TilE HONOMBJ& MIKE WOO!;! TO 1"HE HONORA.BLB M!KB WOOD: Movanl, the Proposed WMd, Perry Loc Whatley, joined by Dawn John.son Wbatlcy, respeetfully rue lhls lhell motion 10 rc.cuseldiutualil'y Judae Mike Wolld and in 111pport they would rhow at follow•: !. JRRBfUIABt.a rACIS L 011 or obouc August l, ~OOS, Judge Wolld hired lbo County Attorney of Ha.rri.s County, ToxDS, to rue 11. motion to qiWh hi1 .1\tbpoena. 2. 1ud~e Wood ft.led a motion wrueb $lolcs In part: "Comes oow Judsc Mlli:c Wood, Judp:, Probate Coun Two of Hurls County .•• ,•· 3. AI !he wnc!usion oithc motion. Judge Wood, the named "movant,~ requ•Jt•d tlult san~tion1 be impo:~ed. Tb.us, Sud11c Wood, by pl'!lyiag fonffirmallvo rclief!o tho form of sanctiona, did more lbllll requ011 tlult his .JUbpoena be QUl!Shod.' He acqu!Rd • pecuniary interest in tl1c case Md C1131 himstlf A! an adWtwy to the WhaUeya.' 11. IH1! I,AW ON PQjN"{ of li!Jna a motion to qlllllh ln which he ~ucstcd sanction~. Thus, he bceame a pl!l1)' to 111~ 1 The motion 10 quuh Ia M.lloxed hereto 1$ exblblt "A" and duly II\COIJlOIIted he~ein by n:!orcn'"' A CERTIFIED COPY. ATTEST: FEB J 2 2008 BEVERL'I B. KAUFMAN, Count)' Clerk Herril County, icxa.s Exhibit E Page 19 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 62 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 '• ,, underlying suit Th~ Toxll! Cotutitut!on prohiblu Judge Wood from conlilluin& at a judge in this Cll!O. ''Najudgrsltallsl/ln atrycase whertlnhr ma)'be ITII~ruttd .... " Tsx.COI>~ll'T.lll'!. S, §§ ll· ff. (ompba.sls lldd:d). S. Th~ (nwes! tbal disqulll!lics a judgo is Ill inl~t, however .!mAll, which rests on a dlre~t ~uniary or pcnonallntt.mt in lho n:~rult of the cue, Cameron v. Oremhlll, 582 S,W,ld 77 S, 176 (J'ex.l979J. [n Cam1ron, the Sup~~me Court h~d a pllrty may not eauJc !ht; rc~:uul of n jlidae by naminj the judge AS llj)lll'ty 10 lho nut. Howave:, thai iiOOI .... batlla~ed !!ere. Judge Wood, by requestina tllllcriOils, eul hit~~self in an adver>arisl role. Thus, 111 a dire~\ ruult of bis llll11on•, "[o]onlltltutlonal diJqualifiea!lon [will render! &ny order lnvolvlna judicial discretion absolutely void," Bucltho/11 J.SlJ. v. GilMer, 632 S.W.2d 146, 148 (Tox.l98'2). 6. AmGng olhcr cxlll'llplc• of constitutionlll dlsqu•lWeotio.n is a c.ue In wnlch a )udae voluntarily p&rtidpalr.cba!lcngc the denial of a rnotion to recuse). 7. Hm, the N!o applies with eq1.11l if not gru~et force for a request for sanc!lons A CERTIFIED COPY ATT!!ST: FEB 12 ZOOS BEVERLY B. KAUFMAN. County Clerk Harri' County, Texas Exhibit E Page 20 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 63 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas r··--- -----·---··-··--·· ... ·--·- -·--··-·. · -·- -·----- ·--··- . . --·---... -. Appendix 1 ~, .. .. l INilte:!lB cltbor mJ!~nduet oo lho pllrt of th~ movanl.i or the Ollng of o frivolous motion which, In the instant Cllse, was not even remotely tnlo. Accordingly, having eqt hlmsclfvoluau~rily io the role of an BDVC!SIUY, Judge Wood stands disqualified u 1 m~tler of law. ill. R£0UESJ FOR BglJEf WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movants ~U~Ue:!t that prior to any further I proceedings in thiJ case, HONORABLE MIKE WOOD either rcc~e himself and rGqu~r that the ! Presiding Judge of the Statutory Probata Co\li'I.S assi&n another judgGto sit in this cue, or request· thP.I the aforesaid Presldinl! Jud;e misn another Judec to hear this motion. Movanu also request I! that this ColD'! take this motion under coruldoution within thn:e days of hs tiling, or set It for 1111 alternate dale for nellrillg pursuaot to TEX. R. Clv. P. !8a(b). Movanu also request such other and l j ~er relief, whether at law or In equity, to which they may show themselvos )un!y entJUod. .! Respectfully submitled: '! L ...W OFPtCliOP Sus ...N C. NORMAN OANI!~ l SHEA PC j ., ~fii~Zl"''=-' ,, ~ SAN C. Slate Bar No.l$083020 RMAN DAN!BLJ. SI-mA Stalo Bar No. 18163850 9135 Katy Freeway, Suite 100 1928 West Boll Street Houston, Tuu 77024 Ho\\ston, TX 770! 9·4814 713-465·3344 (713) 942·7500 713-468-6243 FIIC!imilc (713) 942-7507 Facsimile ATTORNEYFORPBRRYLEE ATTORNEY POR SPOUSAL OUARDlAN WHATLBY, PROPOSI!D WARD DI!SIONI!B, DAWN JOHNSON WHATLEY NOTICE OE l£J(pECTED PRESENTATION I'.LL PARTIES IN ll'mlRl!ST AND THEIR ATIORNI!YS OP Rl!COIW t.RE HI!REBY NOT!l'IBD THAT MOVANT BXPBCTS niB M01lON TO BB PIUlSl!NTBD TO THE ruoon !HPJ!I! DAYS AFTER THE JIIU)oiQ OP SUCH M01lON UNLESS OTHI!R.WISE. ORDl!RBD BY THE JUDQB . 1'\.IRSUANT TO TBX. R. C!V. P lSA(B), ANY OTHER PAllTV MAY FILE Wlrn mE CLE.IlK AN OPPOSINO OR CONCURJUNO STATE.MENT AT ANY TIMB Bl!FORI! THB MOTION IS HBAl\D, A CERT!PTED COPY ATTEST: .,...,._.,..,F..,;.;.E,.;,.B..;;.1.,:::..2-::=-2=00,_..,8:-:-:- BEVERLY B. KAUFMAN, County Clerk Harrl5 Counry, Texas ~~~ Exhibit E Deputy Page 21 of 29 ANNER. WOOD& Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 64 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas .---------·- ---··-·-··------- Appendix 1 NO.l'3S,09S IN /I.E: 11IB PERSON AND ESTATl! § IN Tim PROBATE COURT Ol' § OP PERRY I.EB WHATLEY, § HARRIS COUNTY, T E X A S § A PROPOSBD WARD. § COURT NUMBER (2) TWO AFFIDAVIT Ol DAWEL J. Sfll6 'llll!STATl!OPTEXAS COUNTY 01' HAAAIS BEPORR MB, niB UNOiiltS'IONCO A1.1THORITY, on thl.t day pmonall:y.appu.Rd OANIEI. 1. SHEA, known to me by presentation of h11 Texu Drivcr't I.l~ll.IO 1o be lho perfOn whoso a!gM~ appcw bttlow an4 who, belag by me duly IWlh doyofSeptcmber,l005lo the indivldualso.nd In themiiMu indlcotcd below: Mr. John L. Orcen Faa:dmilc: (713) 660·9921 4888 Loop Ce.ntrlll Dr., Suite 445 Houston, TX 77081·2226 ATTORNEY FOR DA\liN 10HNSON Wl!ATL.BY, SPOUSAL J\PPUCANT Mr. RAy 1. Illac:lc, Jr. HMd Delivery ill Open COl.ll't One Rlni'WIIy, Sullo 1700 Houston, TX 77056-J 997 A'ITORNBY AD !Jl'EM Mr. RoyL. Puller HDnd Deliney in Open Court 1300 Rolllngbtoolc, SullO 608 Baytown, TX 77.Sll·l863 A'ITORNBY 'FOR APPLICANTS ROB'BRT DANIEL WHAn..BY AND JBAN!B ANDERSON -~· A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: FEB 1 2 lOQB BEVER.L Y B. KAUFMAN, Counly Clerk Hmi! County, Teus Exhibit E Page 23 of 29 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 66 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 No,Jl5,0?$ INlll: OI'M I INPI\OIATBCOtm.T Pl!UOH AND I!.Sl'ATBOPP!I!UW I Llll! WfL\TLIIY f I NUM!l8!!. TWO OP I . ,. 1 ~ colllr!Y, nw . ! ll!O'tl!iHTQ OVAIR lllptOJIIA ! To 1!11 RodOlo\11• JUdjplofSiid Covll: I COMU IIOW l.r,o lt.u 11'114, ludco '""''" c., Two of ll:m_ c:...,1, .I t ..... ~ IIW"'U llolo IUiloo Ill 'l"•oi, I ...... oaolt~~~ 1114-jucl~llJI, ltt!U .w..,.., mu.11,409, <2lf'"'~ DliiMIII ,..,_O..,..M•Yt!H,ttl U.C. W, 4l~(IP1\~ 1"'1'111 i/,1.,461 P.U 741t~• Or, 19'12~ no. !W\II>ot """IN .......,"'_,"'' M!lNioW•I'~ ..,,......'f7,....;41urroln•""'"'"••-WI"IUY-!'1W..,..,..,,.,.al~, I IV. c... h .. tloWI!rlooliiU.flo)oM c....-. r- .77Ml rt ~) 6SUJ 16 rl- P. ~) S5UJ61 A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: ~f......,.£='8...,..,;1:..,..2.,..:2;;.;;.0Q:::.;8,-,-­ aEVERLY B. KAUfMAN, County Clerk HII!Tls County, Texas Exhibit E ~6', ~ / Deputy Page 29 of 29 ANNE R: WOODS Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 72 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  09/24/2688 15:32 7137552680 Appendix HCAO 1 PAGE 01/0'3 Mike Stafford Harris County Attorney *NOTICE* PLEASE DELIVER THE FOLLOWING PAGES TO: StrSAN NORJ\'IAN F.AX: (281) 605~1822 Re: In re; Mary Olive Calkins; cause no. 3 78,993; Harris County Probate Court No. 2 and In re Dick C. Calkins; cause no 275,123; Iiams County Probate Court No.2. (C.A File No. 08TRL0133). FROM: STEPHEN SMITH TELEPHONE: 713.755.7156 *** TELECOPTER: 7t3.755.8924 PAGES: 8+ TRANSMITTAL SHEET DAn:: SEPTEMBER 24 1 2008 COMM.ENTS: DEPUTY CHUNG GEE'S MOTJON TO QUSAH SUBPOENA AND MonON FOR PROT.ECTIVE ORDER. TliANKYOU, STEPHEN SMITH/ ·•. *TJI1S FACSIMU.T. TRANSMJSSrON COI'.'TATNS CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION wmr.JJ MAY ALSO H'F. LEGALLY PlUVILEGED A-ND WHICH JSi fN'Jl::NI>ED ONLY POR TfTE US~ O'FTHE ADDRESSEE{S) NAMED BELOW. IF YOU ARE NOT Tm; lNTENtn:D RltClPIENT OF THIS FACSJMJLE 1 OR Tfl't 'eMPLOYEE OR AGEJ'\j RESPON~HII.E FOR DELJVli:RJNG IT TO Tm;: INT'ENDEI> RltC1PIENT1 YOU ARE HEREBY NI')TfFIED THAT ANY ntSSEMINATION Ole C::OPYTNG OF THIS FACSIMILE IS STRJCTLY PROHIBITED, IF VOtl HAVE RECE)VF.n !lJIS FACSJMlU\ rN ~RROR~ PLWii: IMMEDIATEJ.Y NOTIFY US nv Tt.Lil'fiONE AND RF.TtrRN TIIE OIUGINAL FACSJM1Lii: TO US AT TRI!. A!OV'R AfiDRBSS VIA nnr. :POSTAL SERVICE, IF YOU DO NOT RECEIVE ALL OF T.HE PAGES, PLEASE TELEPHONE FRANCES SMITH AT 713.755.1287 RESPECfiVELY. THANK·YOU. Exhibit F Page 1 of 9 1019 Congress, 15'h Floor • Ho~\ston. Texa!l 77002 • Phone; 713~ 7.5.5-.51 ()I • Fax: 713-755-8924 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 73 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  09/24/2008 15:32 7137552680 Appendix 1 HCAO PAGE 02/09 Mike Stafford Harris County Attorney September 24, 2008 Beverly Kaufman County Clerk 201 Caroline, ath Floor, Houston, Texas 77002 Re: 1n re Mary Olive Calkins; cause no. 378,993; Harris County Probate Court No.2 and In re Dick C. Calkins; cause no. 275,123; Harri.s County Probate Court No.2; CA File No. 08 TRL0133 Dear Ms. Kaufman, Enclosed for filing is Depttty Chung Gee's Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order and Order. Thank you for your courtesy and assistance in this matter. Very truly youra, STEPHENSM Assistant County Attorney (713) 755-7156 cc: Susan Norman Attorney for Richard Stephen Calkins Via Facsimile: (281) 605-1822 Exhibit F Page 2 of 9 l019 Congress, 15'"Fioor • Houston, Texas 77002 • Phone: 713-755-SlOI • Fax: 713-755·8924 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 74 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  09/24/2688 15:32 7f37552588 Appendix 1 HCAO PAGE 83/{39 lN RE: § IN THE PROBAT.E COURT MARY OLIVE CALKINS § NUMBER TWO (2) OF § H~SCOUNTY,TEXAS CAUSE NO. 275,123 JNRE: § IN THE PROBATE COURT DICK C. CALKINS § NUMBER TWO (2) OF TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO QUASH SUBPOENA AND MOTrON FOR PROTECfiVE ORDER To the Honorable Judge of Said Court: Comes now Harris CoWlty Sherifrs Deputy Chung Gee, and makes the follo,ving Motion to Quash the subpoena served upon him in this case, and a Motion for Protective Order, and would respectfully show unto the court as follows: I. The attached subpoena, Ex. 1, was served upon Deputy Gee. The subpoena would require him to testify in a recusal hearing in this case set for September 25, 2008. II. Deputy Gee is the bailiff in Harris County Probate Court No. 2, in which the Honorable Mike Wood is the presiding judge. As the bailiff he is entitled to derived judicial immunity. Under the concept of ..derived judicial immunity", the judicial immunity that attaches to judges also attaches to persons who serve as officers of the court or whose activities are intimately associated with tbe judicial process. Dallas Cty. v. Halsey, 87 S.W.3d 552, .554 (Tex. 2002). Edwards v. Pena, 38 S.W.3d 191, 196 (Tex. App.-Corpus Christi 2001, no pet.). When derived judicial immunity applies, a defendant receives the same immunity as a judge. !d. al 554. This Exhibit F Page 3 of 9 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 75 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  09/24/2008 15:32 7137552580 Appendix 1 HCAO PAGE 84/09 fonn of immunity applies to personnel such as court clerks, bailiffs, court-appointed counsel, and other administrative staff members. City ()j Houst()n v. West Capitol Ftn. Servs., 961 S.W. 2d 687, 690 (Tex. App.~Houston 51 (1 Dist.J 1998, pet. dism'd.). See also Clements v. Barnes, 834 S.W.2d 45, 46 (Tex.l992) (court-appointed bankruptcy trustee had derived judicial immunity); Delcourt v. Silverman, 919 S. W. 2d 777, 783 (Tex. App. -Houston [ 141h Dist.] 1996, writ denied) (court-appointed psychologist had derived judicial immunity). Because he is entitled to derived judicial immunity, the subpoena served upon him should be quashed and a protective order issued. III. In addition, pursuant to Tex. R. Evid. 605, a presiding judge may not testify in that trial as a witness. Pursuant to derived judicial immunity, this rule should also apply to the Court's bailiff. IV. There has been no showing by movant that Deputy Gee's testimony is relevant to this hearing. Therefore the subpoena should be quashed and a protective order issued because his testimony is not relevant to this hearing. v. Wherefore premises considered Deputy Gee requests that the subpoena served on him be quashed and a protective order issued. Exhibit F Page4of9 2 - - - - - - - · · - · - · · - · -··-····· ·-· Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 76 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  09/24/21368 15:32 71375525813 Appendix 1 HCAO PAGE 85/139 Respectfully submitted, MIKE STAFFORD Harris C SMITH Assistant County Attorney State Bar No. 18684400 1019 Congress, 15 111 Floor Houston, Texas 77002-1700 Telephone: 7131755-7156 Facsimile: 713/755-9824 ATTORNEYS FOR CHUNG GEE CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that on September 24, 2008, a true and correct copy of the foregoing was served by certified mailt return receipt requested. or by hand delivery, or by electronic document transfer to att parties and/or counsel of record. £7h sfEPHENSMITH Assistant County Attorney Exhibit F Page 5 of 9 3 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 77 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  09/24/2008 15:32 7137552580 AppendixHCAO 1 PAGE 05/09 THE STATE OF TEXAS WITNESS SUBPOENA I SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM PURSUANT TO TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE RULE 176 CAUSE NO 378,993 lNRE: § MARY OLIVE CALKINS lNTHE PROBATE COURT § NUMBER TWO (l} OF § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. 275,123 IN RE: § IN THE PROBATE COURT DICK C. CALKlNS § NUMBER TWO (2) OF TESTAMENTARY TllUSTS § HARRIS COUNTY, T~XAS To: Any sheriff or constable of the State ofTexas or other person authorized to ser.-e and execute subpoenas as provided in Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 176.5. You are commanded to summon Chung Gee, Deputy Sheriff, Harris County, Texas. 201 Franklin, Probate Court No.2~ Harris County, Texas, to appear ~t 1201 Franklln, Projeet. Court No. 2,. Harris County, Texas,, on September 25, 2008, at 10:00 a.m., to appear before Honorable Olen Underwood, and give testimony in this case on behalf of the Movant and to _remain in attendance from day-to-day until lawfully discharged. Chung Gee, Deputy Sheriff1 Harris County, Texas, is commanded to produce and permit inspection of the following documents or tangible things: The Originals of records as set forth in Exhibit "A"r.mg two (2) copies of each Original produced. Contempt. Failure by any person without adequate excuse to obey a subpoena served upon that person may be detmcd a contempt of tJ,c court from whh:h the subpoena is issued or a district court in the county in which the subpoena is served, and may be ppnlshed by fine or confinement, or both. Tex. R. Clv. P. J76.8(a). I DO NOT FAIL to return this writto the Probate Court No.2 of Harris Cotin1y, Texas, with either the attached officer's return showing the manner of execution or the :wimess1s signed memorandum showing that the witness accepted the subpaena. ISSUED on September 9, 2008. By: S:.., ~ C tJ~r...r..,..J t>/f SUSAN C. NORMAN Texas Bar Number 15083020 P.O. Box 806 Richmond, Texas 77406-0806 · Phone: 281-802-5341 Fax:28l-605-!822 This subpoena was. issued at the request of Movant, Richard Stephen Calkins, whose attorney of record is Susan C. Nonnant P.O. Box 806, Rlehmond, Texas 77406·0806, Phone: 281- 802-5341: Exhibit F Page 6 of 9 1 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 78 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas ..-------------------- ----.,...----------,------1 Appendix 1 09/24/2008 15:32 7137552580 HCAO PAGE 137/139 RETURN OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA I. delivered a copy of this subpoena to Chung Gee, Deputy Sheriff, Harris County, Texas, 201 Franklin, Probate Court No.2, Harris County, Texas, in Harris County, Texas, on t h e _ day of , 2008, at o'clock .m.. and tendered to the witness a. fee of$ j 1.00 if) cash. - - I , - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - ' was unable to deliver a. copy of this subpoena to roc the following reasons: By: --~--~--------------- . Person who is not .a party and is 18 years ofagc .or older. ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE OF SUBPOENA BY WITNESS UNDER TEXAS RULE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE 176 I accept service of this subpoena. Signature of Witness Printed Name of Witness Date FEE FOR SERVICE OF SUBPOENA:--- Exhibit F Page 7 of9 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 79 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas r----------------------=-~-·-·--··-···· Appendix 1 .... 09/24/2008 15:32 7137552580 HCAO PAGE 08/09 \. ' EXHIBIT A All written reports, conununications, notes, tape, audio, or DVD recordings, statements, related to Susan C. Norman, arising out of Deputy Chung Gee's employment with Harris County Sheri fr s Department, and assignment to Probate Court Number 2 of HaJTis County, Texas from August I, 2008, to date ofresponse to this subpoena · All written reports, communications, notes, tape, audio, or DVD recordings, statements, related to Rhonda Clark arising out of Deputy Chung Gee's employment with Harris County Sheriff's Department, and assignment to Probate Court Number 2 of Harris County, Texas from August 1, 2008, to date of response lo this subpoena. Exhibit F Page 8 of 9 3 ·--· ····---------- Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 80 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 ~9/24/2008 15:32 7137552580 HCAO PAGE 139/09 •i INRE: § TN THE PROBATE COURT MARY OLIVE CALIONS § NUMBE.R TWO (2) OF § ,HARRJS COUNTY, TEXAS CAUSE NO. 275,123 INRE: § IN THE PROBATE COURT DICK C. CALKINS § TESTAMENTARY TRUSTS NUMBER TWO (2) OF § .HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER Came on to be heard the Motion to Quash Subpoena and Motion for Protective Order of Chung Gee and it appearing to the Court that such motion should be granted it is hereby, Ordered, Adjudged, and Decreed that the ~ubpoena served on Chung Gee is hereby quashed and a protective order issued prohibiting him from testifying in this hearing. Signed this _ _ _ day of September, 2008. Judge Presicting Exhibit F Page 9 of 9 4 . comp Hance with the Public Information Act. Confidential information may have been redacted from the document m Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 81 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  Appendix 1 COPY TOMMY THOMAS Sheriff of Ha"ls County J 100 f.lfl ker .Street HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002·1106 www.hctx.net/so August 29, 2oos To: Don ~Williams, Major Fred Brown, MaJor" rrom: Ce~ptai~ J.T. llert, Re: Complaint (?) of s~\~n Norman I am in 'receipt of the papeNVOrk faxed to the Office of Inspector General (OIG) by Ms. Susan Norman and re- ceived on August 21'h per the date/time stamp of the fax machine (Cover sheet states August 28, 2008). Upon review of the documents provided, I can find no complaint. Instead, 1find copies of various documents to include: Cover sheet (1 page) First Supplement to the motion to Recuse (4 pages) A letter to Deputy C. Gee (2 pages marked ·ex A.) A letter to Ms. Norman from a Michael Easton (5 pages marked ·ex B") · A second copy of First supplement to the motion to Recuse (4 pages) A second copy of a letter to Deputy C. Gee (2 pages marked "Ex A"} A second copy of :a letter to Me. Nonnon from o Mich::lol eoston (5 pages marked "Ex 8") Total number of pages reviewed twenty three. In this review I did not find a complaint directed to either the Sheriffs Office in general nor to the OIG speciticany. As this reviewer cannot look into tne mind of Ms. Norman, r have conCluded that she either failed to make a o:r herent complaint on whatever matter she meant to have (;lddressed or she means to convey her complaint in a different manner. During the review I did find in the letter addressed to Deputy Gee referenced above, a threat of a Federal law- suit being filed agalnst the Department tn relation to an incident that occurred in the courtroom to which Deputy Gee h:i assigned (Probate Court fiZ, 1201 Caroline, Suite 660, Judge Mike Wood presiding). Outing Uu:sl ill\:i· dent Deputy Gee confiscated an electronic device from an emp!oyae of Ms. Norman. The device v.ras retumed to Ms. Norman after the hearing in which she was partlcipating was concluded. on August 29, 2008, at approximately 1100 hours I met with Judge Wood ln his chambers. Judge Wood in-. f(lrmen rna that the previolLS to the incident he had observed an assistant of Ms. Nonnan hand what ap~af'Ed to htm to be a recorder to Ms. Wood as she left the courtroom. On the day of the incident Judge Wood ordered Deputy Gee to confiscate any reec>rding device.he may observe. According to an incident report prepared by Deputy Gee, he "... observed a white female sitting In the back pointing an electronic object with blinking lights towards the bench area." In accordance with the judge's orders and in his belief that the device was being used to record the proceedings Deputy Gee secured the device and placed in on the bench in rront of Judge Wood. Based on the information provided by Judge Wood it is obvious that Deputy Gee was acting under his orders when he confiscated the electron~ device. Subsequently. IF this is the incident of whiCh Ms. Norman wished to complain there is no basis for an ipvestigation. Exhibit G \ Page 1 of 2 Office: 713.755.1260 0FF1Cf OF' INSPJI;CTOR GENERAL Fax: 713.7SS.9S64 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 82 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas r - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -........ -···-··· ----·····----------·········--·--·--·----------·-·· Appendix 1 - ..., . . COPY Based on the information provided by Judge Wood it is obvious that Deputy Gee was acting under his orders when he confisc~ted the electronic device. SubsequenHy, fF !hi£ it tha incidant or which Ms. Norman wished to complain there is no basis for an investigation. I also spoKe wttn Deputy Gee and aSked him If It was standard practice for ntm to maKe rne aamonrsnment , which I have witnessed numerous times over the years, to the courtroom on the day of the incident that orders that all electronic devices be turned off or silenced (verbiage differs between bailiffs)? Deputy Gee said that it is standard practice to make this admonishment NOTE: To the nght of the entronce doore to Probote Court #2 there iQ a sign po:.ted that :.t.e tum off all cell phones, pagers, etc. As Ms. Norman has, in ner correspondence, made an overt t11reat or filing a Federal lawSuit against tne De- partment, a copy of her correspondence was forward to Mr. Fred Keys of the County Attorney's Office for his information. Cc: Fred Keys, County Attorney's Office Exhibit G =--===~~~--=====-------~------~=--=====~~~~of2 2 ··Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 83 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas r-----------~-- ....... _____ ----···-----·-··-------·· Appendix 1 SBC Yahoo! Mail- rjb@rjbl.,~klaw.com Page J of I ~tlSMAll BUSINESS Print· Close Window lman Subject: FW: Michael Easton and the unauthorized prac:tice of law Date: Wed, 7 Dec 2005 16:58:07 -0600 From: "Lewis, Marilyn (Probate Courts)' To: rjb@rjblacldaw.com Ray, FYI and could you forward this to Jimmy Walker as well? Thanks, Marilyn ----Original Message----- From: Gunnels, Meg (Probate Courts) Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 4:56PM To: Lewis, Marilyn (Probate Courts); Wood, Judge Mike (Probate Court) Subject: FW: Michael Easton and the unauthorized practice of law FYI ·····Original Message----· From: Martha Falling PC [mailto:mfailing@mindsprlng.com] Sent: Wednesday, December 07, 2005 11:10 AM To: Gunnels, Meg (Probate Courts) Subject: Michael Easton and the unauthorized practice of law Meg--1 am a member of the Houston UPL subcommittee and was assigned the Michael Easton case before the current lawyer. Easton has been before our committee a number of times and we don't seem to l:>e able to gel anything done, He is very aggressive. I understand he has been driving Court 2 crazy and that you have referred him to the committee for another look. Would you consider filing a complaint directly with Rodney Gilstrap, the state chair of the committee? His address Is P. 0. Drawer A, Marshall, Texas 75671. His email address ls gilstrap1957@yahoo,com, I am asking this because we can't move the case in Houston. Please let me know If you have any questions about this. 713·521-0026 in case you want to call. We would all appreciate getting him out of the couris-from Montgomery to Brazoria counties and everybody in between. Thanks. Martha Failing PC mfaifing@mjndsp.llilg,QQID "R'S MEMORANDUM. RECOROr. . his instrument watJ At the time of recordahoni~e best photographiC found lobe inadequate fo[ illegibility, carbon. or reproduc!IO~' _t>ecause oaper etc. All blocko~ts, photo copy. d1sco\oreo Pere 'present at thP tur.e additions and cha~s~ ~ \he instrument W8'5 fll R BLACK-SUPP 01873 Exhibit H Page 1 of 1 http:/lbJ.mail.yahoo.com/ym/rjblacklaw .com/ShowLetter?box==Inbox&Msgld=560_1117... 12113/2005 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. Appendix 1, First Amended Motion Disqualify Judge Wood A Certified Copy on Constitutional Grounds Attest: 10/30/2015 Page 84 of 84 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  APPENDIX 5 Appendix 5, RR James Chose Hon. Sebesta First Page 1 of 7  APPENDIX 5 Appendix 5, RR James Chose Hon. Sebesta First Page 2 of 7  APPENDIX 5 Appendix 5, RR James Chose Hon. Sebesta First Page 3 of 7  APPENDIX 5 Appendix 5, RR James Chose Hon. Sebesta First Page 4 of 7  APPENDIX 5 Appendix 5, RR James Chose Hon. Sebesta First Page 5 of 7  APPENDIX 5 Appendix 5, RR James Chose Hon. Sebesta First Page 6 of 7  APPENDIX 5 Appendix 5, RR James Chose Hon. Sebesta First Page 7 of 7  APPENDIX 10 0 0 No. 441,165 INRE: § PROBATE COURT MARY OLIVE HULL CALKINS, § NUMBER FOUR DECEASED § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS AMENDED ORDER GRANTING APPLICANT'S MOTION TO RECUSE On this day, the Court on its own motion finds it necessary to amend its prior Order Granting Applicant's Motion to Recuse signed on July 30, 2015 and hereby m substitutes this Order. The Court considered Applicant, Carolyn· Calkins James's · 0 Motion to Recuse the Honorable Christine Butts as presiding judge over Cause No. 441,165 in Probate Court Number Four and, having considered the Motion, the Court is of the opinion that it is in the best interest of the above-referenced cause that the Motion be GRANTED. It is therefore ORDERED that the Honorable Christine Butts recuses herself from Cause No. 441,165 together with all subdockets, if any; and it is further ORDERED that the Honorable Christine Butts will take no further action in this cause except to refer this cause to the presiding statutory probate judge for the State of Texas. Pursuant to Section 25 of the Texas Government Code, the undersigned hereby requests that the presiding statutory probate judge for the State of Texas, the Honorable Guy Herman, assign a statutory probate judge to preside in this cause. Signed September....-!!.1--=-_ ___.,'-=2""01:o.::.5. FILED 2015 SEP -3 AH 7: 51 Christine Butts, Judge Harris County Probate Court No. 4 s~ ;;;;.;-~ COUNTY CLERK <.!!PRISCOUNTY, TO~< Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. A Certified Copy Attest: 10/30/2015 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 10, Judge Butts Amended Order of Recusal Page 1 of 1  )Veb Inquiry Page 1 of8 APPENDIX 9 Courts Property Records Personal Records Other Probate - November 1837 to present ··-··-··---- ··------ . ------------ ----- - ----------- - -x~-~9~~- 1 available Case Number: .441165 from Sept. 1, 1999 to present 105 Event Record I (s) -I @Party ~. Attorney -- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Found. Name (To): _____ __.,___________ ill - - -------- tim File Date (From): _._ Probate I Case Type: :Probate "' . -reflect (s) filings accepted through 2015- 10-30 . Commenced . View - r· Case Court F1le Date By Status Nature Style Location All .... ··-· -- Ti___ .f7/08t20i5TAPP~~tiO;;-·loPEN T~~~~fe-~u~[~~~ -~ i 1441165 i i !and Issuance !HULL I !Parties i i ! !of Letters cALKINS , j 1 1 ; l__________;________l _______L __________;__ _____ iT~~tamentar:y ! DE~E~S~PL______ j____ _j Case File Event Comments Pgs Document Date ID 441165 07/08/2015 Case Initiated - POSTDOD 07-08-2015PWLTRETURN PBT-2015- http://www.hcclerk.net/applications/masterinquiry/Probate.aspx I 1/2/2015 '· A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: NOV 0 2 20115 STAN STANART, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 9, Probate Clerk Docket for 441165 Page 1 of 8 ~~z.~ - ~¥'/.-. . :· .. --~ --/t----~+----~ -=---- v - Deputy Brittany R. Jackson-Gnffin  Web Inquiry Page 2 of8 APPENDIX 9 Application DATE 07-20-2015 221762 441165 07/08/2015 Abstract of PBT-2015- 1 Notice 221764 441165 07/08/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FlUNG FEE 441165 07/08/2015 Citation Issued 1 PERS BY IN RICHARD STEPHEN 0 CALKINSPWLT 441165 07/08/2015 Conform Copies EFILE COPIES FOR CITATIONS 0 441165 07/08/2015 Receipt# 1199212 generated for 0 the amount of $ 440.50 441165 07/09/2015 PW-LT-Posting PBT-2015- 1 222996 441165 07/09/2015 Basic Personal-RICHARD STEPHEN CALKINS, 7400 PBT-2015- Out I Private BELLERIVE, #704, HOUSTON, HARRIS 1 222999 COUNTY, TEXAS 77036 BY P/P 441165 07/09/2015 BASIC- PHILLIP CALKINS STRAUSS, 200 PBT-2015- CERTIFIED MAIL BOHLS ROAD, WIMBERLY, HAYS 1 223004 Personal COUN:YY, TEXAS 78676 BY CERT MAIL 441165 07/13/2015 Application to PBT-2015- 46 Compel (Dep.) 227311 441165 07/13/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE - 441165 07/14/2015 Receipt# 1200181 generated for 0 the amount of $ 4.00 441165 07/14/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/14/2015 Notice of PBT-2015- 3 Hearing 229301 441165 07/14/2015 Notice of PBT-2015- 3 Hearing 248656 441165 07/15/2015 Receipt# 1200805 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 07/16/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/16/2015 Application for W/CAPPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT PBT-2015- Temporary OF TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATION 22 232700 Administration http://www.hcclerk.net/applications/masterinquiry/Probate.aspx 11/2/2015 A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: - - - - - - - - STAN STANART, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 9, Probate Clerk Docket for 441165 Page 2 of 8 Web Inquiry Page 3 of8 APPENDIX 9 441165 07/17/2015 Contest to a Will ANSWER & WILL CONTEST OF (Indep.) RICHARD STEPHEN PBT-2015- 3 CALKINSPOSTRETURN DATE: 233482 8/3/2015 441165 07/17/2015 Citation Issued POST ANSWER AND WILL CONTEST 0 441165 07I 17/2015 Application to PW-LTPOSTRETURN DATE: 8/3/2015 Probate Will and PBT-2015- Issuance of 20 233492 Letters Testamentary 441165 07/17/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/17/2015 Receipt# 1201291 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 07/17/2015 Purported Will PBT-2015- 10 233030 441165 07/17/2015 Purported Codicil PBT-2015- 3 233033 441165 07/17/2015 Purported Codicil PBT-2015- 3 233039 441165 07/17/2015 Citation Issued 0 441165 07/20/2015 Citation SERVED CITATION ON APPLICATION PBT-2015- Returned FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL BY 2 233713 POSTING 441165 07/20/2015 Miscellaneous ORDER DENYING AUTOPSY PBT-2015- 1 Order REQUESTORDER NOT ENTERED 235139 441165 07/20/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/20/2015 Citation SERVED PERSONAL CITATION TO PBT-2015- Returned RICHARD STEPHEN CALKINS ON 2 236540 7/15/15 441165 07/20/2015 Responses RESPONSE AND OPPOSITION OF RICHARD STEPHEN CALKINS TO APPLICATION OF CAROLYN JAMES PBT-2015- FOR APPOINTMENT OF CAROLYN 235157 JAMES AS TEMPORARY ADMINISTRATOR OF THE ESTATE OF MARY OLIVE HULL CALKINS 441165 07/20/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/20/2015 Instrument Over 0 25 Pages 441165 07/20/2015 Receipt# http://www.hcclerk.net/applications/masterinquiry/Probate.aspx 1112/2015 A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: ----'=--"--'-'-- STAN STANART, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 9, Probate Clerk Docket for 441165 Page 3 of 8 Web Inquiry Page 4 of8 APPENDIX 9 1201583 generated for 0 the amount cif $ 331.00 441165 07/21/2015 PW-LT-CODICIL PBT-2015- 1 (S) Posting 235306 441165 07/21/2015 MISCELLANEOUS PBT-2015- 1 Posting 235529 441165 07/21/2015 Receipt# 1201720 generated for 0 the amount of$ 27.00 441165 07/21/2015 Receipt# 1201823 generated for 0 the amount of $ 4.00 441165 07/27/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/27/2015 Subpoena PBT-2015- 5 Returned 244327 441165 07/28/2015 Application to APPUCANT CAROLYN JAMES MOTION Transfer Docket TO TRANSFER TO ORIGINAL (Indep.) STATUTORY PROBARE COURT PBT-2015- 22 ALTERNATIVELY MOTION TO 246202 PRESIDING JUDGE OF GUARDIANSHIP CASES 441165 07/28/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/28/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/28/2015 Notice of JULY 30, 2015 AT 2:00PM PBT-2015- 1 Hearing 244358 441165 07/28/2015 Receipt# 1203376 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 07/28/2015 Receipt# 1203449 generated for 0 the amount of$ 2.00 441165 07/29/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/29/2015 Misc. Notice NOTICE OF WITHDRAW OF http://www.hcclerk.net/applications/masterinquiry/Probate.aspx 1112/2015 A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: _ ___:_0__::2~20:__:.;15'---­ STAN STAN ART, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 9, Probate Clerk Docket for 441165 Page 4 of 8 Web Inquiry Page 5 of8 APPENDIX 9 APPLICATION FOR APPOINTMENT OF PBT-2015- 2 TEMPORARY ADMINSTRATION 247303 441165 07/29/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/29/2015 Instrument Over 0 25 Pages 441165 07/29/2015 Basic Personal- CAROLYN JAMES, 1511112 HAZARD Out I Private STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS 770190N PBT-2015- 1 THE APPLICATION TO PROBATE WILL 246440 AND CODICILS 441165 07/29/2015 Basic Personal- CAROLYN JAMES, 1511 1h HAZARD PBT-2015- Out I Private STREET, HOUSTON, TEXAS 770190N 1 246448 ANSWER AND WILL CONTEST . 441165 07/29/2015 Receipt# 1203750 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 07/30/2015 Receipt# 1203931 generated for 0 the amount of$ 2.00 441165 07/30/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/30/2015 Receipt# 1203963 generated for 0 the amount of $ 27.00 441165 07/31/2015 RECUSAL ORDER ORDERED THAT APPLICANT CAROLYN CALKINS JAMES'S MOTION TO PBT-2015- 2 RECUSE IS GRANTED. SIGNED 248837 7/30/15 441165 07/31/2015 Objection STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO RECUSE FILED BY PBT-2015- COUBSEL FOR CAROLYN JAMES AND 5 249565 OBJECTION TO COMBINED RECUSAL WIH OTHER RELIEF 441165 07/31/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 07/31/2015 Receipt# 1204368 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 08/03/2015 Citation SERVED CITATION ON ANSWER AND PBT-2015- http://www.hcclerk.net/applications/masterinquiry/Probate.aspx 11/2/2015 A CERTIFIED COPY ATTEST: _;_:_:;_..:__~'--""-'"-'""'--­ STAN STANART, County Clerk Harris County, T~::xas Appendix 9, Probate Clerk Docket for 441165 Page 5 of 8 Web Inquiry Page 6 of8 APPENDIX 9 Returned WILL CONTEST BY POSTING 2 249640 441165 08/03/2015 Citation SERVED CITATION ON APPUCATION Returned PBT-2015- FOR PROBATE OF LAST WILL AND 2 249708 CODICILS BY POSTING 441165 08/03/2015 Responses APPLICANT REPLY TO STATEMENT IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO PBT-2015- 10 RECUSE AND OBJECTION TO 252246 COMBINED RECUSAL 441165 08/03/2015 ELECTRONIC FILING FEE 0 441165 08/03/2015 Receipt# 1204448 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 08/04/2015 Receipt# 1204792 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 08/05/2015 Order to THIS INSTRUMENT RETURNED PBT-2015- Transfer Docket UNSIGNED BY JUDGES OFFICE 2 253557 (Dep.) 441165 08/05/2015 Answer CAROLYN JAMES ANSWER AND PBT-2015- 3 CONTEST TO PURPORTED 2007 WILL 255979 441165 08/05/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 08/06/2015 Receipt# 1205626 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 08/07/2015 Citation SERVED PERSONAL CITATION TO PBT-2015- 2 Returned CAROLYN JAMES ON 08/03/15 258178 441165 08/07/2015 Citation SERVED PERSONAL CITATION TO PBT-2015- 2 Returned CAROLYN JAMES ON 08/03/15 258180 441165 08/12/2015 Citation UNSERVED PERSONAL CITATION TO PBT-2015- 5 Returned PHILLIP CALKINS STRAUSS 263069 441165 09/03/2015 RECUSAL ORDER AMENDED ORDER GRANTING PBT-2015- APPLICANTS MOTION TO RECUSE, 1 296895 ENTERED ON 09-02-15. 441165 09/09/2015 RECUSAL ORDER ORDERED CAUSE BE TRANSFERED TO PBT-2015- 1 COURT 2. SIGNED 9/8/15 295806 441165 09/09/2015 Notice of SEPTEMBER 15, 2015 AT 10:00 AM PBT-2015- 2 Hearing 295914 441165 09/09/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 http://www.hcclerk.net/applications/masterinquiry/Probate.aspx 11/2/2015 A CERTIFIED COPY ATIEST: ----!~--"'---......lilL!*W'-"'--­ STAN STANART, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 9, Probate Clerk Docket for 441165 Page 6 of 8 Web Inquiry Page 7 of8 APPENDIX 9 FILING FEE 441165 09/09/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 09/09/2015 Application for W/CSECOND APPLICATION FOR PBT-2015- Temporary APPOINTMENT OF TEMPORARY 22 296090 Administration ADMINISTRATION 441165 09/10/2015 Receipt# 1213080 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 09/10/2015 Receipt# 1213113 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 09/15/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 09/15/2015 Application of W/CMOTION FOR RECUSAL AND OR PBT-2015- Miscellaneous DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE MIKE 6 301183 kind WOOD 441165 09/15/2015 Receipt# 1214009 generated for 0 the amount of $ 4.00 441165 09/15/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 09/15/2015 Instrument Over 0 25 Pages 441165 09/15/2015 Exhibit EXHIBITS TO MOTION TO RECUSE PBT-2015- 191 301705 441165 09/15/2015 Receipt# 1214162 generated for 0 the amount of$ 27.00 441165 09/17/2015 Miscellaneous ORDER OF REFERRAL: REQUESTING Order ASSIGNMENT OF A JUDGE TO HEAR PBT-2015- THE MOTION FOR RECUSAL AND/OR 1 305141 DISQUALIFICATION OF JUDGE MIKE WOOD; ASIGNED 9/15/15 441165 10/05/2015 Letter PBT-2015- 2 323594 441165 10/06/2015 Responses APPLICANT CAROLYN JAMES' PBT-2015- RESPONSE TO MOTION FOR RECUSAL 52 328197 AND/OR DISQUALIFICATION OF http://www .hcclerk.net/applications/masterinquiry/Pro bate.aspx 1112/2015 A CERTIFIED COPY AITEST: - - - - - - - STAN STANART, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 9, Probate Clerk Docket for 441165 Page 7 of 8 Web Inquiry Page 8 of8 APPENDIX 9 JUDGE MIKE WOOD 441165 10/06/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FlUNG FEE 441165 10/07/2015 Receipt# 1219152 generated for 0 the amount of $ 27.00 441165 10/16/2015 RECUSAL ORDER ORDERED THAT RICHARD STEPHEN CALKIN'S MOTION FOR RECUSAL PBT-2015- AND/OR DISQUAUFICATION OF 2 339130 JUDGE MIKE WOOD IS DENIED. SIGNED 10/16/15 441165 10/19/2015 Miscellaneous MINUTE ORDER; SIGEND 9/8/15 PBT-2015- 1 Order 340003 441165 10/19/2015 Miscellaneous MINUTE ORDER; SIGNED 9/28/15 PBT-2015- 1 Order 340006 441165 10/19/2015 Court Letters FROM TANYA SCANLON PBT-2015- 2 340010 441165 10/19/2015 Court Letters FROM TANYA SCANLON PBT-2015- 2 340011 441165 10/20/2015 Notice of NOV 3, 2015 AT 10 AM PBT-2015- 2 Hearing 342466 441165 10/20/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE . 441165 10/20/2015 Receipt# 1221802 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 441165 10/22/2015 ELECTRONIC 0 FILING FEE 441165 10/22/2015 APPEARANCE ENTRY OF SEPARATE APPERANCE AS PBT-2015- COUNSEL-JAMES H. DYER FOR 1 346021 RICHARD STEPHEN CALKINS 441165 10/23/2015 Receipt# 1222543 generated for 0 the amount of $ 2.00 http://www .hcclerk.net/appli cations/masterinquiry/Pro bate.aspx 11/2/2015 A CERTIFIED COPY ATIEST: - - - - - - - STAN STANART, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 9, Probate Clerk Docket for 441165 Page 8 of 8  APPENDIX 8 CAUSE NO. 441,165 IN THE ESTATE OF § IN PROBATE COURT § MARY OLIVE HULL CALKINS, § NUMBER FOUR OF § DECEASED § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS MOTION TO RECUSE THE HONORABLE CHRISTINE BUTTS AND MOTION TO CONSOLIDATE WITH GUARDIANSHIP CASES TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Applicant Carolyn Calkins James (“Applicant” or “Carolyn James”), pursuant to Tex. R. Civ. P. 18a & 18b(2)(a),(b) in the above-entitled and numbered cause, and files this her Motion to Recuse the Honorable Christine Butts (“Judge Butts”) as presiding judge in the above-captioned cause in Probate Court No. 4 of Harris County, Texas, and Motion to Consolidate with pending Guardianship cases, and in support would show: Synopsis Carolyn James respectfully asserts that justice demands that Judge Butts be recused from the present case. Recusal is sought because Judge Butts recused herself sua sponte in the underlying guardianship case involving the same parties and same issues. The judge has admitted there is a reasonable question as to Judge Butts’ impartiality and extra-judicial conduct reflects a personal bias or prejudice against Carolyn James and/or a personal bias or prejudice in favor of Carolyn James’ opponents in this case. BACKGROUND. 1. Applicant Carolyn Calkins James is daughter of Mary Olive Calkins. Mary Olive Calkins (“Decedent”) died on July 8, 2015, at the age of 93 years. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 1 of 41  APPENDIX 8 2. Seven years ago, on March 18, 2008, Applicant Carolyn James filed her application for guardianship asserting that her mother Mary Olive was mentally incapacitated, and therefore needing the appointment of a guardian pursuant to the Texas Probate Code. This guardianship action is styled Cause No. 378,993; In re Guardianship of Mary Olive Calkins, an incapacitated person; in the Probate Court No. 2, Harris County, Texas. This case is still pending. 3. Additionally, there are a total of four cases all pending in the Harris County Probate Courts: A. Cause No. 378,993; In re Guardianship of Mary Olive Calkins, In Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas; B. Cause No. 378,993-401; In re Guardianship of Mary Olive Calkins, In Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas; C. Cause No. 275,123; In re Dick C. Calkins Testamentary Trusts, In Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas; and, D. Cause No. 275,123-401; In re Dick C. Calkins Testamentary Trusts, In Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas. 4. There has been no judge presiding over these guardianship cases since 2012. The last judge, Judge Sebesta, resigned and recused himself sua sponte on or about December 3, 2012. 5. All of the statutory probate judges in Harris County either recused themselves sua sponte or were ordered recused. See Orders of Recusal, Exhibits A, B and C (Sua sponte recusal). Judge Wood, who was the first probate judge, was recused by order the Regional Judge for the Second Administrative District of Texas. See Order Recusal of Judge Wood, attached as Exhibit D. (Applicant asserts the recusal of Judge Wood is void, rendered without subject matter jurisdiction, and facilitated the parade of probate judges who have either recused themselves or been recused by a groundless motions to recuse. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 30.017.) Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 2 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 2 of 41  APPENDIX 8 6. On July 8, 2015, Carolyn James applied to admit Decedent Mary Olive Calkins’s will to probate. Applicant also moved for emergency intervention. On July 15, 2015, this Court held a hearing on the motion. Respondent Richard Calkins pointed out that Judge Christine Butts had recused herself sua sponte in the underlying guardianship case and all sub-docket cases. See Judge Butts’s Order of Recusal, Exhibit A. The Court proceeded with the hearing, but held that she did not have jurisdiction of the motion. The Court declined to rule. ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES. Applicant CAROLYN JAMES entitled to an impartial Judge. 7. Attorneys (and Judges) must respect and honor the judicial office as a public trust and strive to enhance and maintain confidence in our legal system. TEX. CODE JUDICIAL CONDUCT, preamble, reprinted in TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN., title 2, subt. G, app. B. In this regard, the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct requires that judges observe high standards of conduct so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved; conduct themselves at all times in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary; refrain from conveying or permitting others to convey the impression that they are in a special position to influence them; and refrain from financial dealings that tend to reflect adversely on their impartiality or exploit their judicial position. See generally id.; Aguilar v. Anderson, 855 S.W.2d 799, 814 (Tex. App. – El Paso 1993, writ denied) (Barajas, J., concurring and dissenting). 8. The purpose of a recusal motion under TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a is to insure that all litigants have the opportunity to have an impartial judge preside over their case. Brosseau v. Ranzau, 911 S.W.2d 890, 892 (Tex. App.– Beaumont 1995, no writ). Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 3 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 3 of 41  APPENDIX 8 Grounds for Recusal. 9. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b (2) provides, in part, that judges shall recuse themselves when their impartiality might be questioned or when they have a personal bias or prejudice concerning the subject matter or a party. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b(2)(a),(b). Judicial decisions rendered under circumstances that suggest bias, prejudice, or favoritism undermine the integrity of the courts, breed skepticism and mistrust, and thwart the principles on which the judicial system is based. Sun Exploration and Production Co. v. Jackson, 783 S.W.2d 202, 206 (Tex.1989) (Spears, J., concurring). The Standard. 10. In determining whether to recuse pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b, the inquiry should be "whether a reasonable member of the public at large, knowing all the facts in the public domain concerning the judge's conduct, would have a reasonable doubt that the judge is actually impartial." Rogers, 909 S.W.2d at 881(Enoch, J., concurring); see, e.g., Aguilar, 855 S.W.2d at 804-05 (Osborn, J., concurring). Judge recused herself from the guardianship cases. 11. Pursuant to the Texas Estate Code, the proper venue for a probate proceeding is in the Court in which the decedent’s estate is pending. See TEX. ESTATE CODE § 33.002 (Action related to probate proceeding in statutory probate court). There are four cases pending in Harris Court regarding the decedent’s estate. See ¶¶ 3 & 13 (E.g., Cause No. 378,993; In re Guardianship of Mary Olive Calkins; in Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas). The Harris County Probate Courts Local Rules mandate that a subsequent application to admit will to probate shall be filed in the same court in which the guardianship was pending. HARRIS COUNTY PROB. CT. LOC. R. 2.2 & 2.5, attached as Exhibit E. Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 4 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 4 of 41  APPENDIX 8 12. When the ward or proposed ward dies while a guardianship is pending, the probate court must settle the guardianship. See TEX. ESTATE CODE § 1204.001 (Settlement of guardianship); see also Zipp v. Wuemling, 218 S.W.3d 71, 74 (Tex. 2007) (probate court retains jurisdiction after death to settle the estate); In re Guardianship of Bayne, 171 S.W.3d 232, 236 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2005, pet. denied) (guardianship [of estate] stays open after death of proposed ward). 13. There are four ongoing cases pending in the Harris County Probate Courts: A. Cause No. 378,993; In re Guardianship of Mary Olive Calkins, In Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas; B. Cause No. 378,993-401; In re Guardianship of Mary Olive Calkins, In Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas; C. Cause No. 275,123; In re Dick C. Calkins Testamentary Trusts, In Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas; and, D. Cause No. 275,123-401; In re Dick C. Calkins Testamentary Trusts, In Probate Court No. 2 of Harris County, Texas. 14. On March 11, 2011, Judge Butts recused herself from these cases. See Judge Butts’s Order of Recusal, Exhibit A. The Honorable Christine Butts cannot preside over the guardianship cases still pending when the Decedent died. A judge may recuse herself in any proceeding in which one of the grounds listed in Tex. R. Civ. P. 18b(b) are present. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b(b); Dunn v. County of Dallas, 794 S.W.2d 566, 562 (Tex. App. – Dallas 1990, no writ). A voluntary recusal is an admission that the judge is not impartial or that one or more of the grounds listed in TEX. R. CIV. P. 18b is present. Id. For example, a voluntary recusal is an admission that the judge’s impartiality may reasonably be questioned. 15. Once a judge enters a voluntary recusal, the judge must: (1) request that the regional judge assign another judge to hear the case, and (2) take no further action in the case unless there is “good cause.” TEX. GOV’T CODE § 24.002. Applicant asserts that no good cause exists to take Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 5 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 5 of 41  APPENDIX 8 action in the pending guardianship cases four years after the Court’s voluntary recusal. Consequently, Judge Butts cannot rule in the pending guardianship cases. 16. Additionally, the probate court cannot bifurcate or sever multiple proceedings on the application of a will to probate. See TEX. ESTATE CODE § 256.101 (previously Tex. Probate Code § 83(a)); see also Harkins v. Crews, 907 S.W.2d 51, 57 (Tex. App. – San Antonio 1995, writ denied) (probate code favors the use of a single proceeding to determine validity of wills). Consequently, the settlement of the guardianship and the probate of the Decedent’s Will should be in a single probate court before one judge. Bifurcating the proceedings will lead to inconsistent rulings regarding the same estate. 17. All of these cases involve the same parties and same issues. Carolyn James is still the applicant. Richard Stephen Calkins is still the respondent. The question of whether the 2007 testamentary documents were obtained by undue influence and/or fraudulent inducement is still present. Personal opinion of Court offered without evidence. 18. During the hearing on July 15, 2015, Applicant sought emergency intervention to obtain an autopsy of Decedent to substantiate the diagnosis refuted by Respondent for more than seven years that Decedent suffered senile dementia, Alzheimer’s type. Under Texas law, Carolyn James is entitled to request and obtain an autopsy to establish the cause of death. See TEX. CODE OF CRIM. PROC. ART 49.13 (a)(2). In the midst of the July 15th hearing, the parties agreed to the autopsy on the record. See Transcript of hearing, attached as Exhibit F. 19. Despite the Rule 11 Agreement, and the pending contest, Judge Butts declined to rule on Applicant’s motion. Instead, she opined that she had no jurisdiction yet. See Exhibit F. Judge Butts then opined that in her opinion, she did not think an autopsy should be performed. See id. Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 6 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 6 of 41  APPENDIX 8 Effectively, the Judge Butts refused to enforce the Rule 11 Agreement. Additionally, Applicant asserts that this opinion is extra-judicial and gratuitous. Further, because the Court declined to hear the dispute, the opinion was issued without any evidence. Timely motion. 20. Applicant Carolyn James is obligated to raise this motion to recuse before the Honorable Christine Butts rules on any motions in the probate case, or Applicant may waive her objection. 21. This motion to recuse is timely and properly verified. See TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a. See Verification of G. Wesley Urquhart, attached as Exhibit G. Applicant Carolyn James hereby requests a hearing on her motion to recuse pursuant to TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a. CONCLUSION. 22. In sum, Applicant CAROLYN JAMES respectfully asserts that a reasonable member of the public at large, knowing all the facts in the public domain concerning the judge's conduct, would have a reasonable doubt that the judge is actually impartial. Recusal is sought because there is a reasonable question as to the Judge’s impartiality and the conduct of the Court reflects a personal bias or prejudice against Applicant Carolyn James and/ or in favor of Carolyn James’ opponents in this case. 23. In sum, Applicant Carolyn James respectfully requests that the Honorable Christine Butts recuse herself from presiding over this matter on the grounds set forth in TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a & 18b (2). Further, Applicant Carolyn James requests that the Honorable Christine Butts recuse herself from presiding over any case involving Applicant Carolyn James for the same grounds. 24. In the alternative, should the Court not recuse itself, Applicant CAROLYN JAMES respectfully requests that this motion be heard by the Hon. Olen Underwood, the presiding Judge Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 7 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 7 of 41  APPENDIX 8 of the Second Administrative Judicial Region of Texas charged with reviewing motions to recuse for Harris County. TEX. R. CIV. P. 18a(c); see also TEX. GOV'T CODE ANN. § 74.059(c)(3); Brosseau v. Ranzau, 911 S.W.2d at 892; In re Rio Grande Valley Gas Co., 987 S.W.2d 167, 180 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1999, orig. proceeding). Prayer. WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Applicant Carolyn James prays that this Honorable Court set this matter for hearing, and after notice and hearing, the Court will grant this motion to recuse, and further asks that it be granted such other and further relief, special or general, legal or equitable, that Applicant Carolyn James is justly entitled to receive. Respectfully submitted, G. WESLEY URQUHART, P.C /s/ G. Wesley Urquhart By__________________ State Bar No. 20415575 P.O. Box 35520 Houston, Texas 77235-5520 Telephone: (713) 582-0803 Email: wes@wesjustice.com ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT CAROLYN CALKINS JAMES CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE I hereby certify by that my office has contacted opposing counsel and counsel for Respondent is opposed. Thus, judicial intervention is necessary. /s/ G. Wesley Urquhart By__________________ G. Wesley Urquhart Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 8 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 8 of 41  APPENDIX 8 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify by my signature below that a true and correct copy of the foregoing legal document has been served on all parties and/or their attorneys of record in the above numbered and captioned cause in accordance with Rule 21a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure by certified mail, return receipt requested, facsimile, or hand-delivery on this 29th day of July, 2015. /s/ G. Wesley Urquhart By__________________ G. Wesley Urquhart SERVICE LIST Mr. Joseph Libby DYER & LIBBY 1305 Prairie St #100 Houston, Texas 77002 Telephone: (713) 222-7757 Facsimile: (713) 222-7758 josephlibbyattorney@yahoo.com Counsel for Richard S. Calkins Phillip Calkins Strauss, 200 Bohls Rd. Wimberly, TX 78676 phillip.strauss@gmail.com Pro Se Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 9 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 9 of 41  APPENDIX 8 rTTTr DATA ENTRY No. 378,993 PICKDPTHSDAfy 924225 IN RE: § PROBATE COURT MARY OLIVE CALKINS, § NUMBER FOUR C0URT4 AN INCAPACITATED PERSON § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS RECUSALORDER On this day, theCourton its own motion finds that it is in thebestinterest of the above-referenced cause of action for the Court to recuse herself, and the Court hereby recuses herself from the above-referenced cause of action and all associated sub- dockets, including 378,993-401, pursuant to Tex.Govt.Code §25.00255. 5^ IT ISTHEREFORE ORDERED that the Harris County Clerk shall randomly D) assign this case to a judge of one of the other Harris County Probate Courts pursuant to 9 N Section 4.3 of the LocalRules for the Probate Courts of Harris County as approved by 1 iV the Supreme Court of Texas on June 25,2007. IT ISFURTHER ORDERED that judge Christine Buttswill take no further action- in this cause. N Costs associated with this order are waived. $ ^ k. Signed this // day of March, 2011. CHristine !lnnstine Butts,Judge Butts, Judge Harris County Probate Court No. 4 EXHIBIT Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 10 of 41 A  APPENDIX 8 PICK ITP Tim DATg CAUSE NO. 378,993 probate couFrr4 908270 ESTATE OF IN THE PROBATE COURT § MARY OUVE CALKINS, § NUMBER ONE OF § AN INCAPACITATED PERSON HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER OF RECUSAL On this the y^day of March, 2011 the Court, on its own motion recuses itself from the above-referenced cause of action and all associated sub-dockets, including 378,993-401, pursuant to Tex. Govt. Code § 25.00255. • .1? I IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that this matter be randomly reassigned by the county clerk to a judge of one of the other Harris County statutory probate courts pursuant to Tex.. Govt. Code § 25.00255(gXl)(B). IT IS FURTHER ORDERED thatall costs incident to this orderarelereby #live(L SIGNED this day of March, 2011 CM m I osz LoydPWright Judge, Probate Court No. One RECORnER'S ?>!EVORANDUM; At tho timo of focoici,3!:jii, iliir. i.nsirument was EXHIBIT found to be ina'.:scu3l!.- for tho i>e.<5t pl;otograpl)ic reprcductioii hecauao of iiiogibility, carbon or pholo copy, discolored paper, etc. .''.Il blockouts, additions and f.na.'.j;eswfro pra.sontat the time tho instrument v.as filed and recorded. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate B Page 11 of 41  APPENDIX 8 La s 733009 No. 378,993 probate COURT #4 IN RE: § PROBATE COURT MARY OLIVE CALKINS, § NUMBER FOUR AN ADULT INCAPACITATED PERSON § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS RECUSAL ORDER On this day, the Court on its own motion finds that it is in the best interest of the above-refereneed cause and all related litigation for the Court to recuse himself. It is therefore ORDERED that the Honorable William C. McCulloch recuses himself from ai Cause No. 378,993 together with all subdockets, if any; and it is further (I) f) ORDERED that the Honorable William C. McCulloch will take no further action in this cause except to refer this cause to the presiding statutory probate judge for the M State of Texas. Pursuant to Section25 of the Texas Governrr^il Cdlie^ the undersigned hereby N. requests that the presiding statutory probate judge for the State of Texas, the Honorable Guy Herman, assign a statutory probate judge to preside in this cause. Signed August ,2010. vO in X a •>- a UJ CM El William C. McCulloch, Judge Harris County Probate Court No. 4 S 4 EXHIBIT c Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 12 of 41  APPENDIX 8 I -J illflrMnTrWJ , ;XAT£C0UP[T#2 CAUSE NO. S9ap23 IN RE: IN THE PROBATE MARY OLIVE CAULKINS COURT #2OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS /• i ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE AFTER HEARING I i On March 5,2009 came on to be heard, theMotion to Recuse filed pursuant to TRCP 18a in the above captioned cause. The Court hasconsidered the Motion, all attachments thereto, and o all evidence presented, all citations of authority and arguments of counsel. Therefore,IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Recusebe and is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk of the Court shall forward a certified copy of ! ;f» Ui this Order to; 'u Presiding Judge Second Administrative Judicial Region of Texas 207 West Phillips, 3"* Floor . Conroe, Texas 77301 Fax No. 409 538-8167 ui SIGNED this S"" of March, 2009. v.? TKi t 13 Ul f— WECOROeR'SMeMORAWUM. m i- 3P» At tttfl iknToTrecoTdatlofi. iWs ^natrumenl . o SLJdtolS KuSe ior tho b«st photo»ap«^ ottoto copy, Olscotored paper, etc. M eddltions and ctianoes \heinstninwnl Wed ^ere jwyt at nsooraed t»me EXHIBIT Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 13 of 41 D  APPENDIX 8 CAUSE NO. 275,123 DSfRE: § INTKEPROBATE § DICKaCAUIXINS § COURT #20F TESTAMENTARYTRUSTS § § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER ON MOTION TO RECUSE AFTER HEARING On March 5,2009 came on to be heard, the Motion to Recuse Bled pursuant to TRCP 18a in die above cE^tLoned cause. TheCourthas considered the Motion, all attacbments theretio,.and all evidencepresented, all citations ofauthorityand argumentsofconnsel. Therefore, IT IS ORDERED that the Motion to Recuse be and is hereby GRANTED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Clerk ofthe Court shall forward a ceatifiedcopy of this Order to: Presiding Judge Second AdministrativeJudicialRegion ofTexas 207 West Philips, 3"" Ploor Conroc, Texas 77301 Fax No. 409 538-8167 SIOffiDaiiss"" ofMatch, 2009. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 14 of 41  APPENDIX 8 DATA BNTHY Pick UP TH^S DATE RULES OF THE PROBATE COURTS OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS RULE 1: OBJECTIVE 1.1 : •The objective ofthese rules is to establish procedural and administrative rules to assist the courts^ litigants and attorneys to resolve pending cases in a fair, just and efficient manner. RULE 2: REPORTS AND NUMBERING SYSTEM 2.1 Reports. The County Clerk shall supply to each Probate Judge of Harris County, on a monthly basis, information concerning the number of filings, dispositions, trials and other judicial activities, including mental health proceedings, in each Hams County Probate Court With the exception of the County Clerk's report, these rules to not apply to mental health matters. 2.2 Case Numbering - New Matters. All new estate administrations, guardianships, trust matters (including testamentary trusts when the underlying estate has been closed) that are filed in the Probate Courts of Harris County shall be assigned to a court in accordance with M Section 25.1034 of the Government Code. Bach case shall be assigned a docket number M sequentially. All matters relating or appertaining to an estate or guardianship that has not been S closed as provided in the Probate Code, including proceedings upon trusts created by a ^ decedent's will, shall remain in such court subject to an order of transfer as with any case, and ^ shall retain the original docket number with an appropriate sub-file number. Each subsequent i matter filed involving the same decedent or proposed ward shall be filed in the original file, under the same docket number and in the same court as the original filing. If wills are filed for Y probate at the same time for a husband and wife, both cases shall be filed in the court in which J the lowest numbered case is assigned. If adecedent's estate is filed in which the decedent was a L ward of aHarris County probate court, the decedent's estate shall be filed in the court in which ^ the guardianship was pending. 2.3 Case Numbering - Closed Matters. All matters relating or appertaining to an estate, trust, guardianship or other matter that has been closed shall remain in the original court and shall retain the original docket number with an appropriate sub-file number as provided by these rules. The Clerk shall retrieve the closed files and maintain them with the new matter until the new matter is closed. 2.4 Sub-File Numbers. All matters relating to an estate or guardianship administration shall have only the sequential docket number. All ancillary matters shall be assigned the original docket number plus a suffix commencing with 4. For example, the Estate of Mary Doe, Deceased, shall be assigned number 123,456. An ancillary matter shall be assigned cause number 123,456-401. The Clerk shall maintain separate files for each sub-file number. 2.5 Core Matters that belong in the principal file. Those matters that are principally concerned with the administration of the estate are "core matters" and should be filed under the main cause number: ^"exhibit -1 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 15 of 41 e  APPENDIX 8 2.5.1 Probate of wills, issuance of letters testamentary, administration and guardianship; 2.5.2 Determination of heirsliip; 2.5.3 Contest to will, heirship, administration (before and after the grant of letters); 2.5.4 Contest or objection to actions during admimstration (sales, fees, accounting, etc.) 2.5.5 Construction and interpretation of wills and testamentary trusts; 2.5.6 All claims pursuant to the claims-presentation process; 2.5.7 Removal of personal representative; 2.5.8 § 5B/§ 608 motions to transfer an ancillary case (but if thetransfer comes in, it will go to an ancillary-case file);. 2.5.9 Heirship determination within an administration or guardianship; 2.5.10 Release of Independent Executor pursuant to § 149E, which may include an action pursuantto C.P.R.C. Chapter37; 2.5.11 Heirship determination or declaratory judgment as part of a Muniment of Title proceeding; 2.5.12 Testamentary Trust Actions involving court interpretation or construction of the trust. ^ Any of the proceedings described as "core matters" may be severed as an ancillary g proceeding at the Court's discretion. M 2.6 Ancillarv Matters that belong in a different file with an ancillarv or related case j designation. Those contested matters that bear no direct relationship to the administration of the ^ estate and that would have the possibility of becoming an independently-tried lawsuit (each y& potentially with its own docket control and discovery schedules, etc.): I 2.6.1 Foreclosure ofpreferred debt and lien; J 2.6.2 Action for the trial oftitle toland and enforcement ofliens thereon; M 2.6.3 Actions for the right oftrial to property; gh 2.6.4 Testamentary Trust Actions (other than construction issues); 2.6.5 Intervivos Trust Actions (settlor is decedent in probate pending in subject court); 2.6.6 Declaratory judgments (after the will is admitted to probate); 2.6.7 Interpleader actions (fundstenderedinto registry during adiniriistration); 2.6.8 Divorces, child custody, paternity actions 2.6.9 Claims such as personal injury claims or suits on a claim that was rejected in its entirety or in part. 2.7 New Filings. Those matters which are within the jurisdiction of the probate court but which are not part of a pending matter will be designated new files and assigned to a court and given a cause number as in Rule 2.2. Examples include, by description and not by way of limitation: c=s 2.7.1 Intervivos Trust Action (where settlor is still living); J 2.7.2 Motion to appoint successor custodian; ^ 3j 2.7.3 Sale of a ward's interest in property; oo P" 3 5 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 16-of 2 -41 i 4r  APPENDIX 8 2.7.4 Testamentary trust actions (where the original probate is in another jurisdiction). 2.8 Dunhcation. In the event a docket number has been previously assigned to an estate, guardianship or trust matter, all matters shall be filed under such previously ^signed number. When such a situation isdisclosed for the first time after a hearing begins, the judge of the court presiding over the hearing shall terminate the hearing and order the case transferred to the court in which the case first originated. 2.9 Clerk's Duties. The County Clerk ofHarris County shall file, docket, transfer and assign cases as directed by these rules. Neither the admimstrative judge nor the Presiding Judge may direct the County Clerk to do otherwise, except upon the consent ofthe majority of the probatejudges in Harris County: RULE NO. 3. ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE 3.1 Administrative Judge. The local administrative statutory probate courtjudge (the "administrative judge") shall be elected to serve for a term ofnot more than two years. The first term ofthe administrative judge shall commence upon his or her election after the enactment of these rules and the approval hereof by the Supreme Court. The administrative judge may not be elected or appointed upon the basis of rotation or seniority, and may not succeed himself in office. 3.2 Duties of Administrative Judge. The administrative judge shall have the following duties and no other: I U) 3.2.1 Implement these local rules; 3.2.2 Recommend to the Presiding Judge of the Statutory Probate Courts any J needs for assignment firom outside the county to dispose of court L caseloads; J 3.2.3 Provide to the office of court adniinistration or the Presiding Judge any requested statistical and management information; 3.2.4 Coordinate and cooperate with any other local administrative court judge in the county in the assignment of cases in tlie courts' concurrent jurisdictionfor the efficient operation of the court system andthe effective adrniiiistration ofjustice; and 3.2.5 Perform other duties as may be directed by the Presiding Judge with the approval of a majority of the statutory probate judges of Harris County. RULE NO. 4: CASE TRANSFERS 4.1. Transfers. All case transfers between probate courts in Flarris County shall be done on the written order of the transferringand receiving courts. It sliall be the responsibility of the attomey representing the party desiring a transfer to obtain the agreement of the judges of the courts firom which the transfer is sought and to which the case will be transferred. 4.2. Prior Filings. Any matter filed after a non-suit, dismissal for want of prosecution, or other disposition of a previous case involving the same decedent, proposed ward, or Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 17-3 of 41  APPENDIX 8 substantiEilly related parties and claims shall be assigned by the administrative judge to the court where the prior matter was pending. 4.3. Recusal and Disn. If a judge voluntarily recuses himself, or if a motion to recusal or disqualification is granted by any judge, the case shall be re-assigned by the Harris County Clerkby random assignment to another Hams County probate court. RULE 5: CONFLICTING TRIAL SETTINGS 5.1 Inter-Countv. The Regional Rules of Administration of the Second Administrative Judicial Region of Texas and the Civil Trial Division of the Hams County District Courts shall control conflicting engagements in die event of a conflicting trial setting as to parties and lead counsel in the probate courts. When a party or lead counsel is previously assigned to a trialin a different court, a matter thatis subsequently assigned to trial in theprobate court shall be heldin abeyance butwill proceed to trial as soon aspractical after theparty orlead counsel ceases to be engaged in the prior proceeding. The lead counsel shall notify the probate court immediately of his or her availability. 5.2 Intra-Countv. Among the trial courts sitting in Harris County, including the probate courts: (A) Trial/Non-Trial. Trial settingstake precedence over conflictingnon-trial settings. fi! (B) Trial/Trial. A trial setting that is assigned takes precedence over a conflicting I trial setting that is not assigned. iii 5.3 Waiver. The court vrith precedence may yield. 5.4 Lead Counsel. This rule operates only when lead counsel, as defined by Rule 8, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, is affected unless the court expands coverage to other counsel. RULE 6: VACATIONS 6.1 Vacations. Attorneys will be allowed the same vacations as provided by the Rules of the Civil Trial Division of the Harris County District Courts. Vacation notices properly and timely filed for lead counsel with the District Clerk of Harris County will be honored. This rule operates only when lead counsel, as defined by Rule 8, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, is affected, unless the court expands coverageto other counsel. RULE 7: DISMISSAL DOCKETS 7.1 Want of Prosecution. All contested cases which are not set for trial and which have been on file for more than three (3) years are subject to dismissal. Upon request of the court, the Court staff shall furnish notice to all parties and their counsel tliat any contested case will be dismissed for want of prosecution pursuant to the provisions of Rule 165a of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. The procedures for notice of dismissal and retention shall be in compliance with Rules 165a and 306a ofthe Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 18-4 of 41  APPENDIX 8 RULE 8: ANCILLARY AND/OR EMERGENCY PROCEEDINGS 8.1 F.mftrp^ftncv PrnReedinps. All proceedings for restraining orders, teniporary injunctions, writs of habeas corpus, receiverships, temporary administrations, temporary guardianships, small estates, or matters involving the payment of small claims without guardianships pursuant to Sections 133 through 137 ofthe Texas Probate Code, and proceedings for the examination and delivery of the contents of safe deposit boxes or any papers of the decedent pursuant to Sections 36B and through 36F ofthe Texas Probate Code will be heard by the judge ofthe probate court to which the matter has been assigned and docketed, or ifthe judge ofthe court to which the matter is assigned and docketed is not available, then by any available probate court in Harris County. If such emergency proceeding is a new matter, it will first be assigned a case number and court as provided in Rule 2, and may be heard by any available probate judge if thejudge of theassigned court is not available. RULE 9: SUBSTITUTION OR WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL 9.1 Motions to Withdraw or Substitute Counsel. All motions for "withdrawal and/or substitution of counsel shall conform to the provisions of Rule 10, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. RULE 10: MOTIONS S 10.1 Form. Motions and applications shall be in writing on letter sized paper and shall I be accompanied by a proposed order granting the relief sought. The proposed order shall be a ^ separate instrument but may be attached to the back ofthe motion or application. H) 10.2 Responses. All responses shall be in writing and shall be accompanied by a proposed "written order. The proposed order shall be a separate instrument but may be attached to the back of the motion or application. 10.3 LSuhmi.ssinn. Motions and applications may be heai'd by written submission. All uncontested motions and applications (except applications for probate of will, for appointment of administrator, and for appointment ofguarian) shall be heard by written submission, unless the court directs otherwise. While a case is on submission and remains undecided for 30 days or more any party may request and obtain an oral hearing before the Court. 10.4 Oral Hearings. Settings for imcontested hearings on applications for administration, muniments of title, guardianships and heirships shall be requested firom the staff of the court or the County Clerk. Settings for oral hearings on all other matters should be requested firom the staff of the applicable court. Notices of hearings shall include the date, time and identity of the court. An order tendered to the court after a contested hearing shall be approved as to form by counsel for all parties present at the hearing. 10.5 Certificates. All certificates required by the Texas Rules of Ci"vil Procedure are required in all contested matters before the probate courts. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 19-5- of 41  APPENDIX 8 RULE 11: TRIALS 1i.1 APR. Except for good cause shown, only cases that have undergone apreviously ordered ADRprocedure will be tried. 11.2 Manner of Setting. All trials may be set by any party, lead counsel, or the court, by requesting adocket setting or scheduling conference from the proper personnel ofthe court in which the matter is pending and serving notice of the date and time of such scheduling conference upon all opposing parties or their lead counsel. At the scheduling conference, the court shall hear announcements from the parties and shall assign a date and time for trial ofthe matter on its merits and may enter a docket control orderor scheduling order. 11.3 Date of Setting. Contested cases shall be set for trial for a date certain. More than one case may be set for the same time or day and, if so, the cases will be heard indie order established by court. If a case is not assigned to trial within 10 days ofits setting date, the court shall conduct another scheduling conference, set a new trial date, or sign a new docket control order. 11.4 Agreed Continuances. Any trial setting may be continued by written agreement of all parties or their lead counsel, withthe approval of the court. 11.5 Assigned to Trial. A case is assigned to trial when counsel are called to court to commence trial on the merits of the case. For purposes of engaged counsel, no court may have more than one case assigned to trial at any one time. N 11.6 Dead Weeks. Except witli the consent of all parties, no courtwill assign cases to trial on the merits, or set oral hearings on motions, during: y) t 11.6.1 The week ofthe spring stateor regional judicial conference; 11.6.2 The week of the State Bar Convention; 11.6.3 The week of the Conference of the Judicial Section of the State Bar of ^ Texas; 11.6.4 Any December week or weeks in which the Monday of that week begins with the dates December 22-31. RULE 12: APPOINTEES 12.1 AppointeeDefined. An appointee, for purposes of the Supreme Court order effective April 1,1994 is a person chosen by the judge who takes his or her position by virtue of an order signed by the judge. An appointee does not include an attorney hired by a personal representative or guardian whose fees must be approved by the court pursuant to the probate code. 12.2 Appointee Fee Order. Each person appointed by a judge of a probate court to a position for which any lype of fee may be paid shall be paid pursuant to a separate order before any judgment, dismissal or nonsuit is signed by the court. This order is required for every appointment wherein a fee is awarded of Five Hundred Dollars ($500.00) or more. The title of an appointee fee order shall include the word "Appointee". Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 20-6- of 41  APPENDIX 8 ADOPTED on the L dayCourt upon the approval by the Supreme of ofthe State ofTexas^ksuant.to and ORDEKEET^raCTIVE T.R.CJP^^j^/ rSSELL AUSTIN, Judge Probate Court No. 1 Harris County, Texas MIKE WOOD, Judge Probate Court No. 2 Harris County, Texas RORY Ol^EN, Jujige ProMte ^urt No. 3 Harns County, Texas WILLIAM C. McCULLOCH, Judge Probate Court No. 4 Harris County, Texas I RECORDER'S MEMORANDUIt&r At the time of recordation. thia instrument faind to be madeqtotefwthf bestphokKjiapfilc reprodudion because cf ihecitilir/, c&rbon or photo copy, (liscdorec! pape;,' stc.All olockoute additions and changes v/eie present at the fime the instrument was filed and lecofded Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 21-7- of 41  APPENDIX 8 1 REPORTER'S RECORD 2 VOLUME 1 OF 1 3 TRIAL COURT CAUSE NO. 441.165 4 APPELLATE NO. THE ESTATE OF: ) IN THE PROBATE COURT MARY OLIVE HULL CALKINS, ) NUMBER 4 (FOUR) OF DECEASED ) HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS * * * *********** 10 11 MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INTERVENTION TO 12 COMPEL RELEASE OF DECEDENT'S BODY FOR AUTOPSY ************** 13 14 15 16 17 On the 15th day of July, 2015, the following 18 proceedings came to be heard in the above-entitled and 19 numbered cause before the Honorable Christine Butts 20 Judge of Probate Court No. 4, held in Houston, Harris 21 County, Texas: EXHIBIT 22 _F_ 23 24 Proceedings reported by Machine Shorthand 25 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 22 of 41 CERTIFIED SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 A-P-P-E-A-R-A-N-C-E-S: Mr. G. Wesley Urquhart Mr. Joseph Libby Attorney at Law Attorney at Law SEN 20415575 SEN 12318500 G. Wesley Urquhart, P.C Mr. James Dyer 314 N. Post Oak Ln. Attorney at Law Houston, Texas 77024 SEN 06315700 713.661.5590 DYER & LIEEY 1305 Prairie Street Suite 100 Houston, Texas 77002 713 .222.7757 ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT, ATTORNEYS FOR CAROLYN CALKINS JAMES RICHARD CALKINS Mr. Kenneth A. Zimmern 10 Attorney at Law SEN 22276880 11 Zimmern Law Firm 3700 Montrose Elvd. 12 Houston, Texas 77006 713.529.4999 13 CO COUNSEL FOR APPLICANT, 14 CAROLYN CALKINS JAMES 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 23 CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 1 VOLUME 1 (MOTION FOR EMERGENCY INTERVENTION TO 2 COMPEL RELEASE OF DECEDENT'S BODY FOR AUTOPSY) 3 July 15, 2015 Page Vol 4 PROCEEDINGS 4 1 5 ARGUMENT BY MR. URQUHART 8 1 6 ARGUMENT BY MR. LIBBY 9 1 7 COURT'S RULING 13 1 8 COURT REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE 16 1 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 24 CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 1 July 15, 2015 2 PROCEEDINGS 3 THE COURT: Good afternoon. Please be 4 seated. 5 Calling to order Cause Number 441.165, In 6 The Estate of Mary Olive Hull Calkins. 7 We're here on a Motion For Emergency 8 Intervention To Compel The Release of The Decedent's 9 Body For Autopsy. And this was filed by Applicant 10 Carolyn Calkins James. 11 We have a lot of attorneys, it looks like, 12 in the courtroom; and so if we could start here and make 13 announcements - that will make it easier, I think, for 14 everyone. 15 MR. J. URQUHART: Your Honor, John 16 Urquhart, and I'm not attorney of record in this case - 17 I'm just helping out. I'm not making an appearance. 18 THE COURT: Okay. 19 MR. W. URQUHART: Your Honor, my name is 20 Wes Urquhart. John -- Attorney John Urquhart 21 is my son; he's observing. 22 THE COURT: Okay. 23 MR. W. URQUHART: And I represent Carolyn 24 Calkins James. 25 THE COURT: Thank you. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 25 CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 1 MR. ZIMMERN: I'm not appearing, Your 2 Honor; do you wish me to make a statement? I won't be 3 commenting or speaking at the hearing today. 4 Okay. My name is Ken Zimmern, and I'm not 5 making an appearance; I'm here just to assist 6 co-counsel. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. ZIMMERN: Mr. Urquhart. 9 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. 10 MR. ZIMMERN: He is counsel of record. 11 MR. LIBBY: Good afternoon. Your Honor, 12 I'm Joseph Libby; I'm with the firm of Dyer-Libby. 13 You're looking at the whole firm. We're here on behalf 14 of Richard Calkins. 15 THE COURT: Okay. Terrific. So, Mr. 16 Libby and Mr. Dyer? 17 MR. DYER: Dyer, D-Y-E-R. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Thank you. L-I-B-B-Y? 19 MR. LIBBY: Yes, Your Honor. 20 THE COURT: And D-Y-E-R? 21 MR. DYER: Yes, Your Honor. 22 THE COURT: Okay. Great. Thank you. 23 Alrighty. And you guys represent Richard 24 Calkins? 25 MR. LIBBY: Richard Calkins. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 26CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 1 THE COURT: Okay. Well any time you're 2 ready, Mr. Urquhart: 3 MR. URQUHART: Yes, Your Honor - thank 4 you. 5 Let me raise up one thing that Counsel was 6 kind enough to point out. 7 There is a heated, disputed guardianship 8 case involving the decedent, Carolyn James' mother and 9 Richard Calkins' mother. And there were a number of 10 recusals in that case, a number of transfers of court. 11 And Your Honor did recuse herself from the guardianship 12 case on your own motion at one point in time. The 13 guardianship case was not in your court very long. But 14 you did recuse yourself. And Counsel commented or 15 reminded us of that. I didn't remember that until 16 Counsel reminded me of it. And he said he thought we 17 ought -- you ought to be informed that you had recused 18 yourself. 19 I don't have a problem with the Court 20 presiding over the probate case not withstanding the 21 recusal of the guardianship case, but there are 22 different lawyers involved now for Mr. Calkins than were 23 at the time. 24 THE COURT: And that was my issue - was 25 the lawyers involved who represented Mr. Calkins. So, Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 27 CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 1 if that's not an issue anymore/ I don't know that I need 2 to recuse myself. 3 . MR. URQHUART: I agree. And I don't -- my 4 position is Your Honor does not make a recusal of 5 herself. And I think Mr. Libby doesn't have a position 6 on that either, but I ' l l let him speak to that. 7 THE COURT: Okay. 8 MR. LIBBY: Your Honor, I chose only to 9 remind Your Honor. I didn't think i t would be fair with 10 all the questions you had. And this was a contentious 11 case. I know that several other judges recused 12 themselves as well. And I'm very late in this. I 13 wasn't in any of the previous litigation, and I thought 14 it only wise to point out that you had, on your own 15 notion, recused yourself so that I thought was a matter 16 of conscience with you. And if your conscience approves 17 then we'll proceed. It's on you. Judge Butts. 18 THE COURT: Okay. Well I don't see a 19 reason to recuse myself. I had worked -- Ms. Norman was 20 on the case previously, and that was the reason I 21 recused myself because I had some previous dealings with 22 her, and I felt like that -- I just felt like it was 23 appropriate for me to recuse myself. 24 MR. URQHUART: If we're over that then 25 I ' l l go forward, Judge, if you're ready. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 28CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 8 1 THE COURT; Did I hear you say Ms. Norman 2 is still involved? 3 MR. DYER: I don't know how -- oh, I'm 4 sorry. 5 MR. LIBBY: We've had so many discussions 6 with her recently trying to catch up the last two days. 7 You know, we've only had a few days. The Deceased just 8 past way just this last week. So, we hurried up to try 9 and find out what we could about the case; and of 10 course, the best source of information was from Ms. 11 Norman which she's not associated with our firm or been 12 employed by my client, Richard, to represent her in this 13 matter. 14 THE COURT: Okay. Very good. 15 MR. LIBBY: I'm sure there's ongoing 16 matters that she has with Richard, but I don't -- 17 nothing to do with us. 18 THE,COURT: Okay. Well at this point, I 19 feel safe proceeding. 20 MR. URQHUART: Well, Your Honor, may I go 21 forward now? 22 THE COURT: Certainly. 23 ARGUMENT BY MR. UROUHART: 24 MR. URQHUART: Your Honor, an issue in 25 this case, in the guardianship case, and in this case is Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 29CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 1 Decedent, Mrs. Calkins', illness in 2006, she was 2 diagnosed with senile... what's it called? Dementia and 3 Alzheimer's. And she -- there was a dispute in the 4 guardianship case. Mr. Calkins disputed the finding 5 that his mother was incapacitated because of 6 Alzheimer's. 7 ARGUMENT BY MR. LIBBY; 8 MR. LIBBY: Your Honor, may I interrupt? 9 I think that I could save a lot of the Court's time by 10 sifting a lot of Counsel's well-recent argument that by 11 telling the Court that we really do not object to having 12 an autopsy. We don't feel like there's any reason why 13 we should object. We're in favor of an onset -- an 14 autopsy. It's -- 15 MR. URQUHART: That's a new development 16 because the funeral home that Mrs. Calkins was at was 17 told -- told me that Mr. Calkins did object to releasing 18 the body for an autopsy. And the pathologist. Dr. -- 19 MR. LIBBY: Judge, this is just hearsay; 20 i t ' s not argument -- 21 THE COURT: Well if you both agree -- 22 MR. URQHUART: Excuse me. Judge, the 23 pathologist. Dr. Adamay (sic)... What's his first name? 24 Is it on here? 25 MR. ZIMMERN: Jessie. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 30 CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 10 1 MR. URQUHART: Dr. Jessie Adamay was 2 recommended to us by the Harris County Office, and he is 3 a board certified pathologist that Carolyn James, my 4 client, has already paid to perform the autopsy. And 5 right now the funeral home that has Mrs. Calkins will 6 not do anything and agreed not to do anything and keep 7 Mrs. Calkins until we get a court order on the funeral 8 home. And the reason -- on the autopsy. The reason we 9 need the autopsy is because Mrs. Calkins was diagnosed 10 with Alzheimer's. Mr. Calkins contested the 11 guardianship case for a number of four years, and it 12 never got resolved. 13 There were, I think, 10 recusals of judges 14 in that case. There was no judge assigned to the 15 guardianship case for the last year and a half, 16 approximately. Over a year. So, with the death and the 17 filing of this case, we now have a judge, and we need an 18 autopsy so it can produce evidence of the status and 19 condition of Mrs. Calkins' brain, principally, along 20 with her medical records and opinions of the doctors for 21 evidence to show that -- to prove that she was 22 incapacitated in the past. There is more than one will. 23 There's a dispute. 24 THE COURT: Well I'm -- so, Mr. Libby, do 25 I understand you correctly that you guys do not -- Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 31 CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 11 1 MR. LIBBY: We do not. 2 THE COURT: You're fine with the autopsy? 3 MR. LIBBY: We're just worried about 4 the - - 5 THE COURT: The particular pathologist -- 6 MR. LIBBY: We were wondering if you might 7 have a suggestion, that way to assure our client that 8 somebody just didn't pick one out of the sky. We see he 9 looks like a very qualified person, but we feel very 10 much more comfortable if we didn't have to pay for it or 11 at least we don't think we should have to pay and the 12 Court -- 13 MR. URQHUART: Your Honor, my client has 14 already paid Dr. Adamay to perform the autopsy, and he's 15 well qualified. We didn't pick him. He was referred to 16 us by the Harris County Medical Examiner's Office. 17 Never had him as any kind of witness ever, and we 18 believe that he's independent and his autopsy will be 19 independent. 20 MR. LIBBY: I have no problem with any of 21 that. Your Honor, except to say that when I called the 22 Harris County Medical Examiner's Office, they refused to 23 give me a recommendation and said that that wasn't 24 their -- that would not be appropriate. So, I have 25 different information. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 32 CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 12 1 But we were just hoping that you might 2 appoint somebody; otherwise, we'd like them to pay for 3 it. 4 THE COURT: I think i t be -- I don't know 5 anyone, and I wouldn't know who to appoint. And 6 honestly, I think that it's -- I probably would not 7 order an autopsy on this poor 93 year-old woman who has 8 been, you know, the pawn in a guardianship proceeding 9 for a long time. I think it's just, to be honest, I 10 think i t ' s -- she's finally gone. She should be allowed 11 to rest. I personally don't think that gathering 12 evidence to prove that she was demented for the purpose 13 of dividing up her estate is worth the -- 14 MR. URQUHART: Well, Judge, if I may. 15 There's a will contest. 16 THE COURT: I know that. But there is a 17 lot of evidence out there as to her incapacity aside 18 from a pathology report. And there's no -- it's 19 distasteful, in my opinion, beyond distasteful, to think 20 that we're going to carve this woman up for purposes of 21 discovering evidence that she was incapacitated just so 22 that the children can prove that they deserve more money 23 from the estate. And I think that's disgraceful, to be 24 honest. 25 MR. URQHUART: Well, unfortunately, I Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 33 CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 13_ 1 believe that all of the assets in the estate, except for 2 her home, has already been stolen from the estate. 3 So -- 4 THE COURT: I think the poor woman should 5 be allowed to rest. And if you guys want to do an 6 autopsy, I don't want to be a part of it. So, if you 7 guys want to enter into a Rule 11 -- 8 MR. URQUHART: They don't oppose the 9 motion for autopsy, and I -- 10 MR. LIBBY: We agree with the judge. We 11 think -- we thank you for the ruling, and I ' l l draw an 12 order to that effect if you so approve. 13 COURT'S RULING 14 THE COURT: I don't think I have the 15 jurisdiction to order either way because we don't have 16 an estate opened, number one. I don't really think 17 that's a ruling, and I didn't really couch it in that 18 way; I was just giving you my personal opinion on the 19 matter. And even if -- I'm saying that was my personal 20 opinion, but I don't think I have jurisdiction because 21 this is not a matter t h a t ' s incident to and related to 22 an estate at this point. We don't have an 23 administration open. And the proper way to proceed in 24 this matter is for someone to seek a temporary 25 administration and then the administrator would Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 34CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 14 1 automatically have the power to seek an autopsy, I 2 believe. 3 Now they would be well advised to get a 4 court order to back them up for that, yes; but I'm just 5 telling you now that my personal opinion is that this 6 poor woman should be allowed to rest in peace. 7 MR. URQHUART: Your Honor, I think 8 preservation of evidence is important in any case, and 9 an autopsy is only to preserve evidence. 10 THE COURT: Well I don't have any showing. 11 There was no -- nothing that I saw in the pleading that 12 indicates that this evidence couldn't be gathered in 13 another way or that the evidence -- how, how is her 14 condition today, or on July 8th, going to relate back to 15 her estate planning of 2007? That's -- 16 MR. URQHUART: That's a -- I think that's 17 a function of the pathologist to see if he finds 18 evidence of how long. 19 THE COURT: But we have many reports about 20 her -- she was getting evaluated all the time during -- 21 MR. URQUHART: Actually, she wasn't. Your 22 Honor. 23 THE COURT: Well she's got -- she had many 24 mental status exams starting back in, I think, 2001 or 25 2003. She started getting these status examinations. Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 35CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 15 1 And I think that there's a lot of evidence that can be 2 gathered by that. I just -- I'm giving you my personal 3 opinion about -- I'm just telling you how I feel about 4 it. But I don't think I have jurisdiction any way to 5 rule today. 6 MR. LIBBY: Thank you, Your Honor. 7 THE COURT: Thank you. 8 9 ***** 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 36CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 16 1 The State of Texas ) 2 County of Harris ) 3 4 I, Hipolita Lopez, Official Court Reporter in and 5 for the Probate Court Number Four of Harris County, 6 State of Texas, do hereby certify that the above and 7 foregoing contains a true and correct transcription of 8 all portions of evidence and other proceedings requested 9 in writing by counsel for the parties to be included in 10 this volume of the Reporter's Record, in the 11 above-styled and numbered cause, all of which occurred 12 in open court or in chambers and were reported by me. 13 I further certify that this Reporter's Record 14 truly and correctly reflects the exhibits, if any, 15 admitted by the respective parties. 16 I further certify that the total cost for the 17 preparation of this Reporter's Record is $100.00 18 and will be paid by G. Weslev Urauhart P.C. 19 WITNESS MY OFFICIAL HAND this the 27th day of 20 July, 2015. 21 /s/ Hipolita G. Lopez 22 HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Texas CSR #6298 Expiration Date: 12-31-16 23 Official Court Reporter Probate Court Number Four 24 Harris County, Texas 201 Caroline, 7th Fl. 25 Houston, Texas 77002 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate HIPOLITA G. LOPEZ, Page 37CERTIFIED of 41 SHORTHAND REPORTER  APPENDIX 8 VERIFICATION THE STATE OF TEXAS § § COUNTY OF HARRIS § BEFORE ME, on this day did personally appear G. Wesley Urquhart, who, being known to me through personal knowledge, and his driver's license or other identification card, to be the person who did depose and state as follows: 1. My name is G. Wesley Urquhart. I am over the age of eighteen (18) years. I am fully competent to make this affidavit. I am of sound mind, and I have personal knowledge of the facts stated herein and they are true and correct. 2. I am counsel for the Applicant in the cause of action styled Cause No. 441,165; In re Mary Olive Hull Calkins, Decedent; in Probate Court No. Four of Harris County, Texas. I have read Applicant's Motion to Recuse the Honorable Christine Butts as presiding judge of Cause No. 441,165 and Motion to Consolidate, to which this verification is attached, and the facts recited therein are within my personal knowledge, and they are true and correct. FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT Wesley SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on this the 29^ day of July 2015, to certify which witness my hand and official seal of office. ANACONTRERAS Y\ MY COMMISSION EXPIRES j/UL vPijJlAlAnzi NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR Januaiy9,2017 THE STATE OF T E X A S EXHIBIT Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 38 of 41  APPENDIX 8 CAUSE NO. 441,165 IN THE ESTATE OF § IN PROBATE COURT § MARY OLIVE HULL CALKINS, § NUMBER FOUR OF § DECEASED § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS ORDER GRANTING APPLICANT’S MOTION TO RECUSE Came onto be heard, the Applicant Carolyn Calkins James’s Motion to Recuse the Honorable Christine Butts as presiding judge over Cause No. 441,165 in Probate Court Number Four. Having considered the motions, the response, and the arguments of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse should be GRANTED. It is therefore, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Applicant Carolyn Calkins James’s Motion to Recuse the Honorable Christine Butts as presiding judge over Cause No. 441,165 in Probate Court Number Four, and in any other case involving Carolyn James is GRANTED. This Court finds good cause for this recusal. It is further, ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Applicant Carolyn Calkins James’ Motion to Consolidate is also GRANTED. Cause No. 441,165 shall be consolidated with Cause Nos. 378,993, 378,993-401, 275,123, and 275,123-401. SIGNED and ENTERED this _____ day of _______________________, 2015. JUDGE PRESIDING Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 39 of 41  APPENDIX 8 APPROVED AS TO FORM and CONTENT: G. WESLEY URQUHART, P.C /s/ G. Wesley Urquhart By__________________ State Bar No. 20415575 P.O. Box 35520 Houston, Texas 77235-5520 Telephone: (713) 582-0803 Email: wes@wesjustice.com ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT CAROLYN CALKINS JAMES Applicant Carolyn James’ Motion to Recuse and Motion to Consolidate with Guardianship case 11 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 40 of 41  APPENDIX 8 Appendix 8, Ms. James Motion Recuse Hon Butts and Consolidate Page 41 of 41  -- -- ··-------------- APPENDIX 8.1 ,, 0 0 ."~~ \.,.' CAUSE NO. 441,165 r.n "u" ·~- -~·- IN THE ESTATE OF § IN PROBATE COURT t..~-' '\ .,~ ... § MARY OLIVE HULL CALKINS, § NUMBER FOUR OF ,.~~ \.,.' § ~'J DECEASED § HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS co !"'\ \,(\ ORDER GRANTING APPLICANT'S MOTION TO RECUSE (:) l\1 C:'J Came onto be heard, the Applicant Carolyn Calkins James's Motion to Recuse the Honorable ·"' ;,.,) o:; Christine Butts as presiding judge over Cause No. 441,165 in Probate Court Number Four. Having ',,) considered the motions, the response, and the arguments of counsel, the Court is of the opinion that the Applicant Carolyn James~ Motion to Recuse should be GRANTED. It is therefore, i. -. ORDERED, ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Applicant Carolyn Calkins James's Motion to Recuse the Honorable Christine Butts as presiding judge over Cause No. 441,165 in Probate Court Number Four, and in any other case involving Carolyn James is GRANTED. This Court finds good cause for this recusal. .lt. is fv"ller, OR OlilR ED 0 P R !DO£D and DECRf:Bfl !hal !l • nliieaet Garei~'B Gall@Hs .JaHuJs' Ugti9JI te Comoiidale is also GJ:bAt~lTBD. Cauie No 441 ,1~~ sllaU ee eaasglidated witb Cam·e N~. 378,993, 37~,993-401, n3,1:!3, and 27$,12.~ 49+. SIGNED and ENTERED this _3Q_ day of--"~t!""=f'-------' 2015. ~fk;;;- .:l' JUDGE PRESIDING - X: 0 a.. w _J M lL ..., -J ::) ~ = ,~ '·'1' 1/ ,.· Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. A Certified Copy Attest: 10/30/2015 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 8.1, Hon. Butts Re-Recusal At James' Request Page 1 of 2  APPENDIX 8.1 0 Q APPROVED AS TO FORM and CONTENT: G. WESLEY URQUHART, P.C Is/ G. Wesley Urquhart By Sta-,te-:-B::ar--::N-:-o-.-:-2704-:-:1:-::5-:-5:::75-::- P.O. Box 35520 Houston, Texas 77235-5520 Telephone: (713) 582-0803 Email: wes@wesjustice.com ATTORNEY FOR APPLICANT CAROLYN CALKlNS JAMES t If Applicanl Carolyn James' Motion lo Recu3e and Molion 10 Conso!ida!e with Guardianship eliSe 11 \ ! J I I l } ~ l ------------------------------------------------ Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. A Certified Copy Attest: 10/30/2015 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas Appendix 8.1, Hon. Butts Re-Recusal At James' Request Page 2 of 2  APPENDIX 7 Appendix 6, Hon. Sebesta Voluntary Recusal From All Calkins Cases Page 1 of 1  APPENDIX 6 Certified Document Number: 54896009 - Page 1 of 1 Appendix 6, Hon. Weiman Order Dismiss James Case Due Lack Standing & Lack of Capacity Page 1 of 2  APPENDIX 6 I, Chris Daniel, District Clerk of Harris County, Texas certify that this is a true and correct copy of the original record filed and or recorded in my office, electronically or hard copy, as it appears on this date. Witness my official hand and seal of office this March 1, 2013 Certified Document Number: 54896009 Total Pages: 1 Chris Daniel, DISTRICT CLERK HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Appendix 6, Hon. Weiman Order Dismiss James Case Due Lack Standing & Lack of Capacity In accordance with Texas Government Code 406.013 electronically Page 2 of 2 transmitted authenticated documents are valid. If there is a question regarding the validity of this document and or seal please e-mail support@hcdistrictclerk.com  B9/B9/2Bl5 11:38 5128544418 APPENDIX 11 PAGE B3/B3 Presiding Statutory Probate Judge of the State of Texas MINUTE ORDER 2015-065 After the recusai ofJudge Christine Butts ofHarris County Probate Court No. 4 in Cause number 44 I, I 65, styled as In the Estate ofMary Olive Hull Calkins, Deceased, the Harris County Probate Clerk requested that the undersigned Presiding Judge of the Statutory Probate Courts of Texas assign a Judge to hear the above-referenced case. ~1 Pursuant to the provisions ofHarris County Probate Courts' Local Rules 2.2 & 2.5 and Section 25.0022 of the Texas Government Code, I, as Presiding Judge of the Statutory Probate Courts of Texas, hereby order the Harris County Clerk to transfer the above-styled matter to Probate Court No.2 of Harris County. Costs, if any, for this filing are hereby waived. SIGNED this 8th day of September, 2015. an, Presiding Judge Probate Courts of Texas ~ ~ X>rr -.... ~ CD . C') "''"' ~0 c: -4 :] ""'({/ 2::;1 \ U) r 1""1 ~(")~. 0 5I ~~l -<::0 m;:>:: X ""'.,, ... '(! CJ1 ·------------- Confidential information may have been redacted from the d ocument in compliance with the Public Information Act. A Certified Copy Appendix 11, Judge Herman Order Transfer to Probate Court 2 Attest: 11/2/2015 Page 1 of 1 Stan Stanart, County Clerk . Harris County, Texas  APPENDIX 16 Appendix 16, Order Denying Motion to Recuse and Disqualify Page 1 of 1  APPENDIX 14 <.~·~· Presiding Statutory Probate Judgep~~~B.4TE COURT 2 of the State of Texas MINUTE ORDER 2015-070 Pursuant to Government Code § 25.00255, the Honorable Mike Wood forwarded to the undersigned Presiding Statutory Probate Judge a Motion to Recuse and/or Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood, and an Order of Referral filed in the following case pending in the Probate Court #2 of Harris County, Texas: Cause No. 441,165, In the Estate ofMary Olive Hull Calkins, Deceased. Pursuant to Government Code§ 25.00255, the undersigned, as Presiding Judge of the Statutory Probate Courts of the State ofTexas, makes the following order: IT IS ORDERED that the HONORABLE GLADYS B. BURWELL, a Senior Statutory Probate Judge with an Oath on file, is assigned to hear the Motion to Recuse filed in the above-referenced case, with all rights, powers, and privileges held by the regular judge of the court assigned and the attendant jurisdiction of a Statutory Probate Court. Costs, if any, for this filing are waived. SIGNED September28, 2015. Guy S. , Presiding Judge Statutory Probate Courts of Texas ----------------------------------------------------- Appendix 14, Judge Herman Order Assign Judge Burwell Hear ONLY Motion to Recuse, not Disqualify Page 1 of 1 Confidential information may have been redacted from the document in compliance with the Public Information Act. A Certified Copy Attest: 10/30/2015 Stan Stanart, County Clerk Harris County, Texas  APPENDIX 13 Appendix 13, Judge Wood Order Referring Motion Recuse and/or Disqualify Page 1 of 1  Appendix 12 Appendix 12, Sept. 9, 2015 Motion Recuse and/or Disqualify Page 1 of 6  Appendix 12 Appendix 12, Sept. 9, 2015 Motion Recuse and/or Disqualify Page 2 of 6  Appendix 12 Appendix 12, Sept. 9, 2015 Motion Recuse and/or Disqualify Page 3 of 6  Appendix 12 Appendix 12, Sept. 9, 2015 Motion Recuse and/or Disqualify Page 4 of 6  Appendix 12 Appendix 12, Sept. 9, 2015 Motion Recuse and/or Disqualify Page 5 of 6  Appendix 12 Appendix 12, Sept. 9, 2015 Motion Recuse and/or Disqualify Page 6 of 6  }-:)o~) ~ ... , " t).~ I ECOURT .(l? No. 441165 ... .,. ESTATE OF IN PROBATE COURT MARY OUVE HULL CALKINS, NUMBER TWO (2) OF DECEASED HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS Order on Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood On this day the Court reviewed the Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood, Based on the Prior, March 5, 2009, Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood In Case Involving Mary Olive Calkins, carolyn James, and Richard Stephen Calkins, In Which Hon. Olen Underwood Found Carolyn James Joined in the Motion for Disqualification, asking the Court to review its Order dated October 16, 201S. The Court does not find any basis In Texas procedural law for a "Motion to Re-urge" any ruling the Court has previously made and the Court can deny such motion that has no basis in law. Not withstanding the lack of authority for such a "motion to re-urge", the Court finds that the evidence presented to the Court on October 16, 2015, both in pleadings and in oral argument, did not present any evidence that showed that Judge Mike Wood had made any rulings in this case that would cause him to be recused or disqualified to preside over this case and that the Motion Re-Urglng Constitutional Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood should be denied. It Is ORDERED that the Motion Re-Urging Constitutional Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood, Based on the Prior, March 5, 2009, Disqualification of Judge Mike Wood in case Involving Mary Olive Calkins, Carolyn James, and Richard Stephen Calkins, in Which Hon. Olen Underwood Found Carolyn James Joined in the Motion for Disqualification is DENIED. Signed in the Courtroom of Harris County Probate Court Two on November 20, 2015. ce .. '\ , IU*~ Sitting by Assignment = 1 r. ..8 :r. :zt: tCIC ,,~ , ~: :,- ..do . ,. . ...... e \ r) ;-:., ,:~ 'L N r '::!"' .. =-- ( ( , .1 I .... 0 Z .." I .\ i.- ... ~ ( ~ \(11 I