Dec. 1, 2021
All claims have been substantiated as fact, including per the review addressed herein. None of the facts as recounted are contested.
All the claims as restated above each have a legal praxis -- not just theory -- affirmed with case law citations, as well as substantiated with actions that have continued without earlier intervention to forestall their continuation, which would have been presented in a constitutionally applicable proceeding, which is not available per Magistrate Judge.
Considering that herein is recounted allegations of use of mischaracterizations regarding "mental competence" as a form of retaliation as a charge, the consideration of "delusional scenarios" then necessitates a means by which to substantiate fact from libel, as was one of the requests made in a Motion in this very case.
Is the jurisdiction of the claim disputed? I requested impeachment for Constitutional violations. Where is the refutation of the Constitutionality of the actions taken allegedly in the course of upholding the contract the state has with the people via the Constitution?
I never cited this as an authority for an effort to proceed in this case.
Again, those were not the charges.
It is not a consideration of CRIMINAL charges in a proceeding for which the individual members of the Texas State Senate are to be indicted in accordance with establishing them as accountable per personal jurisdiction, but rather that AS A CLASS they failed to uphold their contract with the people as a class are requested for impeachment. This is per arguments that I have already considered in regard to the considerations of governmental immunity, or sovereign immunity, and in reference to U.S. v. McDade. Again, such an argument and proceeding was NOT appropriate for a Magistrate Judge. THIS specific Order stated it supported the recommendations, findings and conclusions of the Magistrate Judge, hence, HE lacks jurisdiction insofar as he is pursuing this as an Eleventh Amendment claim, which it is not.
Article 15, Sec. 7. REMOVAL OF OFFICERS WHEN MODE NOT PROVIDED IN CONSTITUTION. The Legislature shall provide by law for the trial and removal from office of all officers of this State, the modes for which have not been provided in this Constitution.
The argument to be made was insofar as there had been a failure by the Texas State Senate to uphold the provisions of impeachment against the Governor, then was there another Constitutional process whereby the offense could be remedied and was there a requirement on the Texas State Senate to engage it? This section of Article 15 has ALREADY been potentially demonstrated BY MEMBERS OF THE LEGISLATURE not in the Senate as well as in the Senate in the last year and before the date of Judge Starr's Order.
Again, this is not a suit for criminal charges or to implicate specific individuals in a crime independent of their office. It is in consideration of their failure to PERFORM THEIR OBLIGATIONS UNDER THE CONSTITUTION to the People. The correct consideration is in regards to establishing that a lower federal court has the jurisdiction to correct for breaches of the State Constitution[C1].
The Plaintiff is not "suing;" the Plaintiff is "impeaching." In the failure of the Senate to perform its duties, then its actions become void. "Sec. 29. BILL OF RIGHTS EXCEPTED FROM POWERS OF GOVERNMENT AND INVIOLATE. To guard against transgressions of the high powers herein delegated, we declare that everything in this "Bill of Rights" is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate, and all laws contrary thereto, or to the following provisions, shall be void." In the void of the Senate performing the duties to uphold the Constitution, the question is does a lower federal court have authority to declare another Constitutional process in which those duties can be upheld?
According to the Texas Constitution, "Sec. 4. JUDGMENT TO REMOVE AND DISQUALIFY; PUNISHMENT UNDER OTHER LAW PERMITTED. Judgment in cases of impeachment shall extend only to removal from office, and disqualification from holding any office of honor, trust or profit under this State. A party convicted on impeachment shall also be subject to indictment, trial and punishment according to law." If the Texas Senate refuses to uphold this duty, then whom is to uphold it? If the Constitution is a "contract" between the People and the legislature to whom the People delegate the power via representation in the legislature, then who has the authority to impeach the legislature -- in this case, the Senate -- for refusal to uphold its Constitutional duties in regards to checking against abuses by the Governor, when they fail to uphold their duty? That is why the "requested relief" regarded a request for new elections after the Senate as currently composed has been removed from office per an impeachment proceeding. The Court could have determined ANOTHER remedy had there been an appropriate consideration of the ACTUAL charges and regard for the implications of the impeachable offenses through an examination of the facts, as opposed to a presumption of intent and pursuit of action that was not stated by Plaintiff.
From Article 1, Sec. 3: "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."
Article 3, Sec. 2: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;...and between a State, or the Citizens thereof,..."
This is not an Eleventh Amendment claim. The specific laws requested for consideration invoke the specific authority of the federal court.
No exception is requested.
This is not an Eleventh Amendment claim.
The better question to have been addressed is that of, "If the state actor is NOT acting in accordance with the Constitution, is that state actor qualified for immunity? If they are not performing their constitutional duties, then are they engaged in performances that do not qualify as those of the holder of office for which such immunity applies?" This also speaks to concerns regarding the role of the Attorney General.
As a class. See other arguments citing other cases.
This includes arguments regarding suits involving the State of Texas as well as at least two opinions issued by Attorneys General that as of yet are undisputed regarding the implications on the authority of agencies authorized by the legislature if it should be determined that the legislature is not acting in accordance with the Constitution.
See Opinions from the Attorney General of Texas describing the authority of state agencies, as well as the role of the legislature in determining administrative proceeding or judicial jurisdiction for redress concerning a claim, when it comes to determinations about the implications of "connection to the enforcement of state law or that they are specifically charged with a duty to enforce that law and are threatening to exercise it." In fact, the charges against the governor specifically demonstrate not only the threat, but the delivery on the threat to operate beyond the explicitly-stated bounds of the constitutionally authorized laws of Texas as well as acting beyond the implicit authority of his office.
These are not "federal law claims" or "state law claims.” These are Constitutional claims.
I did.
I did.
Insofar as the cost and damage to the People of the State, and others, due to refusal to address the Constitutional issues is as substantial at this point as it is, it does.
It was and still is.
Bearing the burden of persuasion is different than establishing burden of proof regarding the implications of refusing to act on the merits of the case by addressing the facts of the case, beginning with the actual argument itself, as well as assuring that it was addressed in a manner that is itself Constitutional, which compelling a proceeding before a Magistrate Judge without consent is not.
"Infer" implies a form of subjectivity that was not presented in the case itself. There were actual material harms that had been stated.
A request to accept the case and schedule for trial, to grant a pre-trial hearing regarding evidence submission, as well as any number of other pre-trial and trial proceedings would have presented ample opportunity for such. In fact, there are video records of meeting not only important timelines in the proceeding itself outside of any actual administration of justice, but that demonstrate, testify to and provide evidence of HOW an appropriate consideration of the facts as originally presented and moved on in accordance with due process would have PREVENTED harms and damages to both the Plaintiff as well as the People.
All of this information was already in my possession by the time I filed. Why was I not granted a means by which to submit it onto the record and as evidence?
In this manner, there was not all of the evidence at the time, BUT the implementation of the laws themselves were permitted while obstructing a process by which to present a challenge to their Constitutionality and/or to present evidence and substantiate claims regarding how their implementation violated OTHER laws that were already on the record. The fact that obstruction of those arguments permitted for a more profound outroll of additional laws that were engaged in the same sort of violations of other laws, including Constitutional rights, provides something that was argued by Scalia, in the affirmative of the negative, which is that NOT MOVING to address the Constitutional merits of the claims has instead "shown a likelihood of success on the merits regarding NOT ADDRESSING a challenge to these laws."
How does holding the Attorney General and the Governor via his approval of a law that violates existing laws regarding public information require "prospective relief" in order to establish the claim as one having merit? The claim was that the law violated the law. THOSE laws were not changed; other laws were passed that violated those laws, including laws protected by the Bill of Rights.
"Imminent" is an important word to have used in regards to an argument that there was a process that had been unconstitutionally permitted for a roll out of successive law changes to occur over a period of time, as the laws regarding "confidentiality" of information, including as related to its impact on third-party contracting, are concerned.
If the court will not address the actual argument, and the court will not address the actual authority that is sought under which to proceed, then the burden of establishing the success of the proceeding is not on the Plaintiff, but on the court.
Not factually correct. There were literal persons who were "state actors" -- including as would have been accountable to agencies authorized by the legislature -- that were either named as respondents in past efforts or identified by name in former legal efforts that had been obstructed during the course of the unconstitutional changes to law.
They are not vague. There was ample and sufficient reference to prior efforts. Had the case proceeded to court or another appropriate pre-trial process, there would have been and was literal, verifiable, demonstrable evidence, as well as precedent regarding establishing specific individuals and offices as accountable for specific offenses -- up to and including members of the Supreme Court of Texas.
Again, not only is this factually incorrect but it has also been misused in past efforts at obstructing due process. The facts of the case, including as presented, are not reflected in this material mischaracterization of what happened and hence the efforts to address the alleged "seizure" in this manner are not relevant to this proceeding.
That is because I went to the hospital voluntarily to turn in evidence to mandated reporters. That is not at all addressed in this material mischaracterization of the facts of the case, but rather is evidence of the facts of the case as they were "alleged."
I never claimed "false imprisonment." I claimed "kidnapping."
It was not a "tort." It was a "crime" under the Texas Organized Crimes Code. It is also a federal crime. It also involved efforts to compel ingestion of controlled substances without legal justification and to maintain the kidnapping in an effort to compel cooperation with efforts to ingest illegally acquired controlled substances with the intent to distribute upon release.
See Texas law on kidnapping:
Sec. 20.01. DEFINITIONS. In this chapter:
(2) "Abduct" means to restrain a person with intent to prevent his liberation by:
(A) secreting or holding him in a place where he is not likely to be found; or
(B) using or threatening to use deadly force.
Sec. 20.03. KIDNAPPING. (a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly abducts another person.
These were the charges as presented in the original Writ of Habeas Corpus, which itself was an appeal to the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals after a Petition for En Banc Review was submitted to the Supreme Court of Texas and denied for "jurisdiction." The "jurisdiction" of the criminal petition was never challenged.
Again, there were no "false imprisonment" claims.
No they are not. Physicians and nurses are mandated reporters of child abuse and fraud.
TEXAS FAMILY CODE
CHAPTER 261. INVESTIGATION OF REPORT OF CHILD ABUSE OR NEGLECT
Sec. 261.101. PERSONS REQUIRED TO REPORT; TIME TO REPORT.
Insofar as the actual charge was not addressed, then the three determinants for qualifications per this case law citation concerning retaliation are not adequately considered. What is the "chilling effect" of reducing a failure of mandated reporters to perform legally-required duties in order to protect the safety and welfare of children to a "First Amendment" claim? It was not "retaliation" for asserting a First Amendment right to freedom of expression or assembly; it was reporting on CRIME.
Again, it was reporting CRIME to MANDATED REPORTERS of CRIME.
There was no Motion to Dismiss; there was not even an appeal to compel production of this [Order on] Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations as jurisdiction had not been established.
No. I alleged a crime. The mischaracterization of the alleged "claims" up until the "taking" claims brings into consideration other charges, including "comingling of assets" in regards to proceedings involving fraud. But THAT claim was not able to be presented because the Judge refused to establish jurisdiction and instead yielded his jurisdiction to a Magistrate Judge in an unconstitutional process.
Unlawful proceedings involving defrauding the trust of Chalmers Andre Lovejoy, Charity Colleen Crouse, trustee, via an unlawful Justice Court proceeding.
Like property allowed to be engaged in "securities fraud" via an unlawful proceeding for "possession of the property" without any legal documentation? Much like what ended UP being the charges after mandated reporters of CRIME refused to perform their duty as was required by law.
See "Samuel Ellsberry Trust 2019, Edna Elizabeth Ellsberry, trustee v. Charity Colleen Crouse" 3:21-cv-2126-K.
If nothing else ALL OF MY LEGAL DOCUMENTS INCLUDING THE ORIGINAL PRINT OUTS AND COURT PAPERS IN THIS CASE WERE STOLEN.
It was a request for impeachment.
No. THOSE "due process claims" were in OTHER legal filings that were obstructed while state actors engaged in breaches of their contract with the People, which is the Constitution, to uphold the Constitution.
Such as here, where the failure to address the actual claims as made and the failure to respond to the facts of the case has both denied me "fairness" as well as failed to protect me.
Why would not the IRS accept my tax payment?
Why did the Department of State three times refuse to process my request for a new passport after mine was stolen?
True.
See "reports" spreadsheet, including in reference to 24 reports with the State Auditor's Office of Texas that address 11 report numbers that until now have not been closed as well as a report to the Texas Board of Insurance Commissioners that also had a case number issued and was never closed after six attempted correspondences, one of which included a request for hearing.
What about this one?
There was no specific allegation regarding the "religious beliefs" in the refusal to address an evidence submission process. The [Texas] Bill of Rights discusses method "most binding on the conscience" and does not specify that such method is to be religious, but that one cannot be denied regardless of religious belief. It also discusses evidence and submission of evidence in accordance with considerations of acts of perjury.
It was not a tort.
That is not true. The argument was that allowing for past violations of the Constitution on par with what was reflected in the more recent violations of the Constitution demonstrated intent and failure to uphold their duties in performance of the Constitution.
There is over a year's worth of "evidence" that one can perform a duty and be "cognizable" real time of the potential future consequences based on past precedent and failure to act in accordance with the Constitution.
I contend this is libel and violates the Texas Bill of Rights.
I just disputed it AFTER having to dispute it in the NDTX based upon an unlawful justice court proceeding that demonstrated some of the specific "harms" that were alleged in the original Petition.
Again, libel, and in light of what happened during the more recent unlawful proceeding, I believe it may be evidence of intent to commit a hate crime directed at retaliating against a person attempting to report child abuse that also included electronic sexual abuse of children.
Even more concerning in light of the allegations specific to what was addressed in BOTH 17-0622 and 18-0600 PRIOR to the City of Dallas' 2020 HUD Budget proceedings.
Again, is this intentionally orchestrated anti-Semitism via an automated template? Akin to what Carillo-Ramirez did in her original effort months earlier?
That is a "double" on "frivolity" Part 1.
That is a "double" on “frivolity" Part 2.
Footnote: [C1]Now to be considered is if a State Supreme Court can consider the merits of a Constitutional case involving another State, for which there is precedent. WOULD Section 2, Article 24 be an applicable process for such consideration? I contend it is comparable to the established precedent for permitting another State Supreme Court to consider a Constitutional case from a State Court. It may also be equivalent in determinations regarding the authority of members of the Texas Legislature to “remove themselves” from the State insofar as they are under orders from a person in abuse of the constitution to co-conspire to violate the Constitution. Removal from a “State” to another “State” is not the same as removal from the “State” to the “Federal Court.” However, in the case of the Texas State Senate, that there had already been an effort engaged to request the Supreme Court of Texas consider a referendum for secession (which I contend the Texas Constitution provides a process for so doing) then establishing the just cause claim for secession per the Texas Constitution by invoking the authority of the State of Texas within the federal compact of states that is the Constitution of the United States was not improper and revealed deficiencies that needed some other form of correcting in order to move forward at the time. Since the illegal special session by Gov. Abbott and the responses of the Legislature, a new consideration comes to bear.
_____________________________________________________
9:40 am CST
Nov. 6, 2023
President Charity Colleen Crouse