Whitfield, Ronald Dwayne

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