Title 2 - 4.6.2025

Case No. 3:21-cv-2126-K
“Samuel Ellsberry Trust 2019” ) In the Northern District of Texas
Edna Elizabeth Ellsberry, trustee ) United States District Court
v. )
Charity Colleen Crouse )
Defendant Charity Colleen Crouse files the following appeal against Plaintiff
“Samuel Ellsberry Trust 2019” per trustee Edna Elizabeth Ellsberry for Case No.
3:21-cv-2126-K of Sept. 7, 2021.
Rule 749. May Appeal
In appeals in forcible entry and detainer cases, no motion for a new trial shall be
filed.
Either party may appeal from a final judgment in such cases to the county court of
the county in which the judgment is rendered by filing with the justice court within
five days after the judgment is signed, a bond to be approved by said justice, and
payable to the adverse party, conditioned that he will prosecute his appeal with
effect, or pay all costs and damages which may be adjudged against him.
The justice shall set the amount of the bond to include the items in Rule 752.
Within five days following the filing of such bond, the party appealing shall give
notice as provided in Rule 21a of the filing of such bond to the adverse party. No
judgment shall be taken by default against the adverse party in the court to which
the cause has been appealed without first showing substantial compliance with this
rule.
Aug. 18, 1947, eff. Dec. 31, 1947. Amended by orders of July 22, 1975, eff. Jan. 1 1976;
June 10, 1980, eff. Jan. 1, 1981; July 15, 1987, eff. Jan. 1, 1988.
In the appeal to the Northern District of Texas US District Court, the defendant
asserted that the unlawful process was confirmed by the fact that the defendant
had a homestead claim and that no landlord/tenant relationship existed. Evidence
attests to the fact that this process was not merely unlawful, but unconstitutional.
Confirmed on Sept. 21, 2024 and following since Sept. 21, 2023 defendant
understood the “homestead” claim of concern had actually been set up by Ellsberry
(ie., “plaintiff”) following an illegal loan arrangement in connection with mortgage
fraud committed against Crouse (ie., “defendant”) in May of 2019 for an illegal
transfer of deed and title in connection with a trust recorded with the County of
Dallas on Nov. 24, 2019. Additionally, defendant affirmed that the unconstitutional
proceeding had been commenced as an effort to elicit a bond on the faith and
credit of the defendant by the plaintiff, who until that time had refused to provide
any evidence that she, or that the person alleged to be the person over whom she
maintained a relationship as trustee, had and any legal claim to the property. No
lease agreement was ever provided; no mortgage agreement or tax statement was
ever provided; no identification by the plaintiff in regards to her alleged relationship
to the trust had ever been provided. Requests were made by defendant numerous
times for such documentation, both to the alleged trustee and the person alleged
to be the person over whom she maintained a relationship as trustee. This
information about efforts to obtain documentation was provided in the affidavit
that the defendant provided to the justice court, first in court to the judge, and then
to the clerk in the justice court’s office. This affidavit was provided on the day of the
court proceeding, Sept. 3, 2021. The judge allowed for the affidavit to be presented
to him in court and the defendant handed the affidavit to him in court; the judge
returned the affidavit and said that if an appeal was desired to file one in either the
office via the clerk or “downtown.” The clerk refused also to take the affidavit when
it was presented immediately after the court proceeding.
The defendant asserted in court that due to the proceeding that had occurred
immediately prior to the proceeding in this matter being called before the court,
she understood that there was an act of “securities fraud” ongoing at that time,
including in an effort to defraud efforts by the defendant earlier to file reports with
an Internal Affairs Department officer for a police department in another city
regarding allegations of fraud. The judge of the justice court referred to details
about the prior litigant and said that he was not the person of concern and did not
acknowledge the allegations of securities fraud at that time. He also did not
acknowledge the defendant asserting that no legal documentation of the plaintiff’s
relationship to either the property or the trust had ever been provided and neither
had any discussion ever occurred regarding any “rent.” The only discussions had
been regarding the “homestead” and its relationship to various repairs to the
property.
That the plaintiff refused to provide any documentation in court also implicates the
matter pertaining to the information in the “Original Petition for Eviction” itself. No
order for “forcible entry or detainer” was ever provided in regard to the original
notice or any subsequent notice, but neither was any “Bond for Possession”
provided, either, as was declared in the “Original Petition for Eviction.”
Rule 738. May Sue for Rent
A suit for rent may be joined with an action of forcible entry and detainer,
whenever the suit for rent is within the jurisdiction of the justice court. In such case,
the court in rendering judgment in the action of forcible entry and detainer, may at
the same time render judgment for any rent due the landlord by the renter,
provided the amount thereof is within the jurisdiction of the justice court.
Source
Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Art. 3976
The above references Vernon’s from a 2010 edition of the Texas Rules of Court, Vol.
I - State. This belies an understanding that various case citations would explicate
the specific contexts for consideration of the implementation of this rule. At this
time, however, the facilities wherein the reference material are available are closed
to the public. The defendant contends that the proceeding of concern involves a
false “judgment lien” in regards to a prior contract for property arrangement that
the defendant had engaged in July of 2005 when she first came to Texas and that
was within one month of another person being added to the contract. The refusal
to provide any official documentation by the plaintiff and the evidence that has
come to light since the original “Notice to Vacate” on July 12, 2021 have revealed
that the unconstitutional proceeding herein is attempting to be conducted in
regards to expectations of capacity to take delivery of undisclosed payments in
regards to undisclosed obligations incurred in connection with frauds concerning
the original contract. Since the delivery of the April 1, 2022 order by the Fifth Circuit
Court of Appeals, the defendant understands that this illegal “lien” was permitted
to be abused so as to compel an appearance of default in order to exercise a
second illegal “lien.” Defendant contends that per information in changes that have
taken place to Vernon’s in regard to “public information” and the requirements
regarding documentation as well as Texas case law that the references regarding
the legacy for the explication of interpretation of statute concerning the intent of
the legislature when it effected the law is materially relevant to the matter at hand.
The changes in regards to Vernon’s citations substantiate the charges in the original
appeal regarding the commencement of the proceeding at a time prior to which
the specific law that was of concern went into effect so as to attempt to effect an
outcome that was not applicable at the time of the commencement.
Additionally, defendant understands that the timeline for which the federal district
court proceeded in the appeal concurs with events that would correspond with the
treatment of the matter as if it were applicable for consideration in a case
regarding forcible entry and detainer, however, no order regarding forcible entry
and detainer was provided.
As stated in the appeal presented after the Sept. 21, 2021 forcible entry, the
defendant refused to provide entry until such time as a search warrant had been
provided. Additionally, the defendant acknowledged that a search warrant would
have been required in order to access alleged “property” that was being held onsite
under a triple lock system as part of evidence in another matter that had been
within the appeal period for a federal district court case at the time of the forcible
entry. Until this time, defendant has refused to provide any access and no search
warrant has been provided.
An additional consideration comes into account when considering that the alleged
“rent” reported on the “Original Petition for Eviction” was “$0.00.” Defendant
contends that this is itself further evidence of the intent to engage a bad faith
proceeding in order to elicit a bond on the faith and credit of the defendant that
would correspond with a determination that the amount on the bond would be
requisite to the amount of “$0.00.” The “value” of the “property” of concern is not
“$0.00.” This “property” of concern is not available legally for or as rent, including
insofar as no verbal or written agreement had been provided regarding a
landlord/tenant relationship. The implications of the above rule and the intent to
defraud by virtue of the unconstitutional proceeding have been confirmed via
evidence that has come to light in the course of the effort to appeal the matter to
the federal district court, including within the last 21 days. As stated above, more
evidence became available on the second as well as third annual anniversaries of
the motions and orders in the case until now.
Rule 749b. Pauper’s Affidavit in Nonpayment of Rent Appeals
In a nonpayment of rent forcible detainer case a tenant/appellant, who has
appealed by filing a pauper’s affidavit under these rules shall be entitled to stay in
possession of the premises during the pendency of the appeal by complying with
the following procedure:
1) Within five days of the date that the tenant/appellant files his pauper’s affidavit,
he must pay into the justice court registry one rental period’s rent under the terms
of the rental agreement.
2) During the appeal process as rent becomes due under the rental agreement, the
tenant/appellant shall pay the rent into the county registry within five days of the
due date under the terms of the rental agreement.
3) If the tenant/appellant fails to pay the rent into the court registry within the time
limits prescribed by these rules, the appellee may file a notice of default in the
county court. Upon sworn motion by the appellee and a showing of default to the
judge, the court shall issue a writ of restitution.
4) Landlord/appellee may withdraw any or all rent in the county court registry
upon a) sworn motion and hearing prior to final determination of the case showing
just cause, b) dismissal of the appeal, or c) order of the court upon final hearing.
5) All hearings and motions under this rule shall be entitled to precedence in the
county court.
May 9, 1977, eff. Sept. 1, 1977
As asserted in this rule, the plaintiff has no claim to any rent without registering
with the county registry. In order to set up an account with the county registry, the
plaintiff would have been required to provide legal documentation of eligibility to
open an account with the county registry. That would also have included
confirmation of the legally-substantiated rent claim agreement and the amount. No
such documentation has been provided. Hence, the attempt to elicit a bond on the
faith and credit of the defendant also defrauds the justice court insofar as the
proceeding was permitted to be conducted in accordance with the faith and credit
of the court. That the rent amount was listed as “$0.00” also compels consideration
of the implications in the event of an act of fraud permitting for a
mischaracterization of “default” to occur. The defendant contended at the time of
her appeal to the federal district court on Sept. 7, 2021 that this was a criminal
matter and not an eviction proceeding. The defendant also informed the attorney
for the plaintiff of this contention on July 15, 2021 after the receipt of the July 12,
2021 “Notice to Vacate” as it was suspected as being an effort to obstruct an
ongoing case that had been submitted to the federal district court for which a
judgment was delivered in the time during which this unconstitutional proceeding
was being engaged. The Sept. 3, 2021 court proceeding in the justice court occured
18 days after the judgment in a case that was itself against representatives of the
State of Texas and had been pending in the federal district court. That case,
however, would also have meant that the judgment was delivered 15 days BEFORE
the implementation of the law change that was what the defendant contends is the
matter at hand herein went into effect. That case was still within its appeal period
during the timeframe that the court proceeding took place, meaning the
implications of “securities fraud’ committed in the justice court have bearing on the
case before the court against representatives of the State of Texas.
The defendant submitted her affidavit to the court under other rules of the court
and in consideration of an appropriate process for proceeding as pertains to a
homestead claim as opposed to a landlord/tenant relationship or a mortgage. That
affidavit, however, and the appeal in the federal district court would have been
sufficient to meet the legal determination for proceeding in the form of a pauper,
especially in the the void of any effort to adequately address the matters pertaining
to the plaintiff’s attempt to enforce an eviction for lack of rent payment when the
amount of the rent was listed as “$0.00.” The defendant contends, however, that in
addition to the evidence that was illegally acquired and stolen in the course of an
appeal, that there was substantial property of the defendant’s onsite that was
worth a considerable amount of money and for which receipts and inventories that
had already been created and were onsite were stolen. Additionally, the fact that
the defendant’s personal identification documents were also stolen and have until
this time been refused return is further evidence of the intent to attempt to elicit a
bond on the faith and credit of the defendant in an intentional and willful effort to
engage acts of securities fraud and other crimes. It is now more than three and a
half years since identification documentation was stolen and the court has refused
to order the plaintiff to return it. In that time, defendant is not legally eligible to
record more than “$0.00” of “income” as part of an employment arrangement, even
if she went “downtown.”
Rule 749. May Appeal – Opinions of Subcommittee on Interpretation of Rules
Bond
The plaintiff or landlord in a forcible entry and detainer suit must give an appeal
bond in order to appeal to the County Court. 6 Texas B.J. 49 (1943); 8 Texas B.J. 31
(1945).
1988 Amendment
Rewrote the first paragraph which previously related to a motion for a new trial not
being necessary to authorize an appeal added the last paragraph [sic].
Source
Vernon’s Ann. Civ. St. Art. 3987.
As can be seen via the official determination above, in order for a suit for forcible
entry and detainer to be commenced, the plaintiff must provide the bond. The
defendant contends that the plaintiff intentionally engaged a suit under false
pretenses to elicit a bond on the faith and credit of the defendant. That the justice
court refused the affidavit and that the defendant had to appeal “downtown” (as in
the federal district court) also provides evidence of the charges, including that in
previous suits before the federal district court the defendant’s efforts to proceed as
the petitioner were permitted to proceed “in forma pauperis” or via an affidavit
regarding “inability to pay filing fees” but was NOT accepted in the appeal of this
matter, despite the affidavit being accepted as part of the case that was filed in the
federal district court. Defendant also contends that NO information on alleged
“lawyer’s fees” or the costs of “filing fees” by the plaintiff has been provided, while
billing records and other financial information about the defendant – including in
regards to costs associated with her other efforts to file via the federal district court
as well as the Supreme Court of Texas and the Supreme Court of the United States
in the time since when she had moved into the premises – had been stolen.
Defendant contends that the plaintiff bears responsibility for the costs of the
appeal as well as the costs of the damages accorded in the context of the
unconstitutional proceeding itself.
Rule 749c. Appeal Perfected
When an appeal bond has been timely filed in conformity with Rule 749 or a
pauper’s affidavit approved in conformity with Rule 749a, the appeal shall be
perfected.
May 9, 1977, eff. Sept. 1, 1977; Amended by orders of April 15, 1982, eff. Aug. 15, 1982;
April 24, 1990; eff. Sept. 1, 1990.
1990 Amendment
Rewrote rule which prior thereto read:
“The appeal in any forcible detainer case shall be perfected when an appeal bond
has been filed.
“When a pauper’s affidavit has been filed in lieu of the appeal bond, the appeal
shall be perfected when the pauper’s affidavit is filed with the court; however,
when the case involves nonpayment of rent, such appeal is perfected when the
pauper’s affidavit has been filed and when one rental period’s rent has been paid
into the justice court registry. In a case where the pauper’s affidavit is contested by
the landlord, the appeal shall be perfected when the contest is overruled, and if the
case involves nonpayment of rent, one rental period’s rent has been paid into the
justice county registry.”
Defendant contends that just as in the manner in which the Sept. 3, 2021 court
proceeding is implicated in the charges regarding the case for which the district
court allegedly issued a judgment on Aug. 16, 2021, that the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals and the April 1, 2022 judgment is likewise implicated. That the case was
remanded by the federal district court to the local justice court recurrently and the
means by which it was allowed to be taken for delivery by the Fifth Circuit Court of
Appeals demonstrates that the appeal period for the matter is still pending and
that the jurisdiction for the case is in the federal district court, not the local justice
court. Additionally, defendant contends that the case is not a case regarding a
landlord/tenant relationship, but an attempt to defraud a mortgage claim and
commit violations of the law that legally constitute criminal acts of securities fraud
and other crimes. As such, this case is not appropriate for a civil court but is
appropriate for a criminal court of consideration.
At this time, defendant requests that the court approve this case for transfer to a
criminal court while also granting relief to the defendant by returning her to her
property and granting a restraining order against the plaintiff during the pendency
of the criminal proceeding. The defendant also requests the court enjoin anyone
else subsequent to the July 12, 2021 “Notice to Vacate” from access to or
consideration in regards to any benefit related to these charges. These requests are
within the court’s jurisdiction to grant.
/s/: Charity Colleen Crouse
5916 Birchbrook Dr., 3231
Dallas, TX 75206
(469) 372-7853
charity.colleen.crouse@outlook.com
3:59 pm CST
April 21, 2022
13 days as of April 8, 2025.
You would have stolen from our children that much?
Does that mean you are holding Justice Busby hostage at your whorehouse?
I can come in after him…
10:46 am CST
April 4, 2025
President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse
12:41 pm CST
April 6, 2025
President Charity Colleen “Lovejoy” Crouse AKA Charity Colleen Crouse
/s/: Charity Colleen Crouse

Posted public at 12:55 pm CST (2 - 12:59 pm CST on 4.6.2025)

April 6, 2025

President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse

Title 2 - 4.6.2025

Recent Posts

Comments