Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure 56.1(b)(1) states that the notation \u201cDenied\u201d shows that \u201cthe Supreme Court is not satisfied that the opinion of the court of appeals has correctly declared the law in all respects\u201d.
[T]he denial of a petition for review by the Texas Supreme Court does not constitute a ruling on the merits of the case.Roberts v. Golden Crest Waters, Inc., 1 S.W.3d 291, 293-94 (Tex. App. \u2014 Corpus Christi 1999, no pet.).
The sole issue brought to the Supreme Court was this court\u2019s denial that the certification by the Texas Secretary of State that a diligent search of the records of that office failed to find an Oath of Office for the visiting judge for the court in which he was exercising authority, is sufficient evidence to meet the burden of making a prima facie showing that the trial judge did not take the required oaths on the basis that such a denial goes against Texas Rule of Evidence 803(10).
The Supreme Court\u2019s action in this matter is sufficient to show that this court erred in its determination of the law of this case, and this court should issue a new opinion that properly reflects the law for this case.
This Court\u2019s opinion indicated that it accepted the evidence offered at trial for summary judgment as sufficient.Murphy v. Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. 199 S.W.3d 441, 445 (Tex. App.\u2014 Houston [1st Dist.] 2006).
Appellant attaches to this motion an affidavit identifying copies of sworn criminal complaints to establish facts that are not included in the appellate record and are not known to the Court in its official capacity. Tex. R. App. P. 10.2.
The original complaints are with the office of the Criminal District Attorney of Galveston County, Kathleen Marx-Sharp, Section Chief, Grand Jury, Galveston County Criminal Justice Center, 600 59th Street, Suite 1001, Galveston, Texas 77551-4137, tel. 409-766-2355, pending action by the grand jury.
In the 1876 formative period of the present Texas Constitution, the Granger led convention affirmatively recognized that the courts of this state were \u201calmost holy\u201d \u2013 that is to say that their regard, respect and integrity were beyond reproach. However this court has received tainted evidence, has misapplied the rule of law and rendered an opinion that offends justice and the rule of right.
Countrywide has repeatedly demonstrated itself to be a criminal enterprise \u2013 engaged, inter alia, in the theft of hundreds of citizen\u2019s homes in Texas alone. The judge in the trial court below has failed utterly to meet the oath requirements that are fundamental to its jurisdiction to rule in this or any case. Further, Countrywide appears before this court with unclean hands having as a matter of record breached the fundamental rules of equity.
These facts and circumstances require reversal of the court of appeals opinion in this case. This court cannot let justice be denied and the rule of right to be eviscerated from this case. Recall of this court\u2019s mandate and reversal of the Appellate court\u2019s opinion is the only manner in which justice and the rule of right may vindicate the rule of law in this case.
Appellant has shown the Court that the Supreme Court of Texas has shown its dissatisfaction with the declaration of the law made by this court in the opinion issued for this case, and the Court should issue a new opinion that correctly states the law. Further Appellant has shown that the evidence presented by appellees in the trial court was generated in an unlawful manner and should be disregarded.
Now bringing you back...
Does that email address look wrong? Try again with a different email.