Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Motion to Vacate and Recall

Motion to Vacate and Recall

Ratings: (0)|Views: 115 |Likes:
Published by api-3798261
Motion to the First Court of Appeals of Texas to vacate its judgment in this case and recall its mandate to the trial court. Includes attachments of copies of criminal complaints against the appellees and other actors.
Motion to the First Court of Appeals of Texas to vacate its judgment in this case and recall its mandate to the trial court. Includes attachments of copies of criminal complaints against the appellees and other actors.

More info:

Published by: api-3798261 on Oct 17, 2008
Copyright:Attribution Non-commercial


Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less





B. Argument and Authorities

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.).

Sufficiency of Evidence That the Visiting Judge Lacked the Required Oath of Office

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.

Summary Judgment Evidence Tainted

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).

The Court\u2019s opinion presumes that the evidence presented at trial was obtained
in a proper manner.
Appellant here shows that appellees used totally inappropriate methods to
obtain the records used for evidence in the trail court.

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.

This Court should reject the evidence used by appellees in the trial court.
C. Conclusion

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.

You're Reading a Free Preview

/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->