Raid the Child Command
Order accepting findings of Magistrate Judge by Presiding Judge was issued on Aug. 16, 2021. After attempting to file an appeal from a state court to the federal district court in another case, the same Magistrate Judge engaged in the same course of action as the previous case and in the course of her actions during the subsequent case the Presiding Judge in that case recused himself without entering any justification of the authority for so doing. The result was to demonstrate again why a refusal for the Magistrate Judge to apply the law regarding eligibility for consideration of proceeding before Magistrate Judge and denial of right to trial by jury, including after transfer to court of criminal jurisdiction, are themselves evidentiary of the original charges requested for consideration by the court. As such, I contend that Case Number 3:20-cv-00114-X, Crouse v. Texas State Senate, qualifies for New Trial in consideration of violations of Rule 50 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Were the case to have been given trial by jury, then actions engaged in the last 21 days would have qualified for consideration under Rule 50(c)(1) in consideration of engaging Rule 50(b)(2); insofar as the subsequent case provides evidence substantiating the claims made in the original case, then actions engaged by the Federal District Court in support of the same Magistrate Judge have occurred within 28 days to qualify for consideration under Rule 50 of FRCP and Rule 4(A)(vi) under Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure. Relief is sought under Rule 60 of FRCP in reversing denial of actual charges in case establishing federal jurisdiction claim, denial of submission of evidence in proceeding, remanding back to county justice court proceeding, and supporting unlawful eviction proceeding that at this time has materially impacted me and caused damages. Rule 60 of FRCP is also sought in Crouse v. Texas State Senate in vacating Order and Judgment in the case. Nov. 15, 2021 is 91 days after filing of Judgment and Order in Course v. Texas State Senate; Crouse and Space Hawk LLC DO NOT consent to commencement of any derivative proceedings engaging the LLC in derivative action and Crouse contends that ample evidence now exists to substantiate original claims in both cases regarding illegal derivative action as further substantiation of already levied charges.
Regarding Professional Misconduct in Consideration of Actions by Opposing Attorney in Case No. 3:21-cv-2126-K
By Charity Colleen Crouse
Nov. 2, 2021
Per Rule 3.09 Special Responsibilities of a Prosecutor
Ie., “(c ) not initiate or encourage efforts to obtain from an unrepresented accused a waiver of
important pre-trial, trial or post-trial rights;”
Had I relented to permitting a Magistrate Judge to impose herself in the stead of permitting for the full exercise of rights to due process of the defendants -- all of the defendants, including via trial by jury -- I would have been in breach of this rule.
On the other hand, the opposing attorney involved in the alleged “justice court” proceeding knowingly engaged herself in acts that challenge the credibility of her representation, including and via confirmation of her representation in writing, or responding to electronic service in an appeal that included request for removal to Federal District Court and transfer to a criminal court, and refused to produce documentation establishing legal right to engage justice court proceeding by her client that resulted in legal forfeiture of her client’s deed to me. In event of removal and transfer, then refusal to respond to the request for “Consent to Proceed Before Magistrate Judge” -- also required of her client -- deprives me as an initial defendant in a justice court case of full exercise of rights. Thus far no challenge to the decision alleged by the Magistrate Judge or other decision by the Senior Judge, as well as the procedurally inadmissible “Letter of Recusal” by the Presiding Judge, has additionally deprived me of full exercise of rights.
Per Rule 4.04 Respect for Rights of Third Persons
“...or use methods of obtaining evidence that violate the legal rights of third persons.”
Permitting for an unlawful proceeding to continue and illegally acquire items already identified as evidence AND about which the attorney was informed, including via Affidavit, violates the rights of whoever else that evidence would have been useful in availing them of full exercise of their rights.
The Affidavit was hand-delivered to the attorney in court. She was present and witness to the justice court judge’s orders regarding submission of Affidavit with appeal. The Affidavit explicitly discussed evidence on site that would have required a search warrant to obtain unless specifically submitted by me.
Per the Affidavit:
“8) I have provided myself a triple lock and key system for keeping my evidence, as I am
engaged in the course of legal proceedings about which both Ellsberry and his brother
have been informed. I did this prior to the front door being repaired.”
P. 4 of Affidavit, Page 17 of 29, Document 3.
The appeal to the Federal District Court was submitted by the end of the day on Sept. 6, 2021; the attorney and another member of the firm were informed via electronic notice by the court by the end of the day on Sept. 8, 2021. The deputy for Constable Michael Orozco was contacted by phone on Sept. 13, 2021 before 4:30 pm CST and the deputy and the attorney were both contacted via email on Sept. 14, 2021 before 9:00 am CST about the pending appeal and lack of legal standing in continuing the proceeding. The deputy on Sept. 21, 2021 was informed -- while other law enforcement was on the phone with me -- that he was not allowed to enter without a search warrant and that I had evidence in my home office. He refused to permit me to place a third lock on the door to prevent breach of evidence after he broke and entered through the front door, holding it ajar, while he threatened further unlawful action, including using “mace,” which he threatened to spray at me through the partially-opened door. See Affidavit, item 3), for implications.
Both constable’s deputies were informed after I was placed on the ground in my home, handcuffed, removed from my home without being read my rights despite asking while I was nonconsensually video-taped by the Plaintiff and the man whole stole my keys if they were going to read my my rights, and placed in the back of one of the marked constable’s vehicles, that there were chemicals in a specific site on the property that were evidence and were not available for consideration as anything other than evidence -- hence the demand for the search warrant before entry would have been permitted -- and was told that they were going to be removed from where they were and placed outside on the lawn with my other “personal property.” They were not. All of the chemicals were previously inventoried by me and there were notes on the specific dates, times and contexts for placing those chemicals where they were so placed in consideration of them as evidence but necessitating a distinct storage for safety reasons. Prior to this event I composed a process document concerning my understanding of procedure necessary for lawful acquisition of such chemicals by law enforcement that would have been -- or rather is -- a part of my own legal efforts. This procedure or a comparable procedure was not followed. This to me shows actual professional consideration and/or conduct that an opposing attorney would know what was required by law.
Per Rule 5.04 Professional Independence of a Lawyer
“(a ) A lawyer or law firm shall not share or promise to share legal fees with a non-lawyer, except that:
1. An agreement by a lawyer with the lawyer’s firm, partner, or associate, or lawful court order…”
My legal fees are not available as credit or a “loan” to anyone else. My agreement to represent myself pro se since May of 2017 is on my computer, in the folder identified as “Legal Work.”
My “legal fees” are different and distinct from any other “fee” I would charge for or in consideration of my LLC. The evidence of this and the system for accounting as such is in three invoices that are in the “Space Hawk LLC” folder under “Invoices.”
I also have written the notes on site by hand in paper notes.
Those invoices were from a specific quarter of the year that correlates with a one-year-later time frame in connection with the quarter of time during which the events of the unlawful proceedings were engaged.
Per Rule 5.05 Unauthorized Practice of Law
“(b) assist a person who is not a member of the bar in the performance of activity that constitutes
the unauthorized practice of law.”
Acts of identity theft, securities fraud, and crime in the course of willfully and knowingly violating the rights to due process of the one representing themselves pro se is NOT AUTHORIZED under the law, including in consideration of the herein referenced rules of professional conduct.
[Finished and signed 8:37 am CST on Nov. 2, 2021 - handwritten]
[Proofread by 11:21 am CST on Nov. 2, 2021]
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 )
Motion for Discovery in Proceeding Against Surety
Appellant Charity Colleen Crouse requests consideration under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 26(a)(1)(i), FRCP Rule 26(a)(1)(ii), FRCP 26(a)(1)(iii) and FRCP 26(a)(1)(iv) Duties to Disclose; General Provisions Governing Discovery that the Court provide information on the surety for the Judgments and Orders, including Recommendations, Findings and Conclusions and denial of to Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis, alleged to be signed for by Magistrate Judge Irma Carrillo Ramirez, and Order alleged to signed for by Senior Judge Sydney Fitzwater as well as the Request for Recusal allegedly attributed to and signed for by Presiding Judge Ed Kinkeade in Case No. 3:21-cv-2126-K. Appellant requests such be provided in regards to additional sureties in connection with filing via the emergency filing procedure attributed to others represented as the “Operations Assistance Team” for the Northern District of Texas US District Court in regards to appropropriate application, including indemnification or liability, as established under FRCP Rule 65.1 Proceedings Against a Surety.
/s/: Charity Colleen Crouse
Re: 5916 BIrchbrook Dr., #231
Dallas, TX 75206
Re: (469) 372-7253
Oct. 15, 2021
1:50 pm CST