Post 200: Happy 9th Birthday! - 6.2.2026
- charitycolleencrouse
- 4 days ago
- 2 min read
Today is exactly nine years since what came to be identifiable as Cause No. wr-87,139-01was "born" at the Texas Supreme Court. It was ACTUALLY "born" at the Texas Supreme Court, but after June 12, 2017 is was allowed to be appealed to the Texas court of Criminal Appeals to be formally recognized as:
In re Charity Colleen Crouse; WR 87, 139-01
Writ of Habeas Corpus
Filed July 20, 2017
Shortly thereafter it was accompanied by Cause No. 17-0622:
Petition for Leave to File an Information in the Nature of Quo Warranto
In re Charity Colleen Crouse
August 3, 2017
Congratulations! There is no confusion.
In response to material conditions, I re-post the following:
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 to Amend Application of Rules of Evidence
Charity Colleen Crouse requests the Court amend List of Evidence, Evidence List 2, and Motion to Add Exhibits to Evidence List 2 to remove Rule 803. Hearsay Exceptions; Availability of Declarant Immaterial from consideration. Recent evidence has been obtained and existing court documents, as well as previously identified and recorded motions to the court, have been altered or stolen since Feb. 26, 2022 when Crouse submitted a Motion for Expedited Foreclosure. Crouse contends that the conditions substantiating the availability of the declarant immaterial have been materially altered to such an extent that the presence of the declarant is required, as well as the production of the evidence in the possession of the declarant at the time of the declaration. This also includes production of evidence by the court and those alleged to be officers of the court.
/s/: Charity Colleen Crouse
Texas, USA
4:13 pm CST
June 22, 2022
__________________________
Are we related:
Author: Hugo L. Black Vote Count: 6-3 Concurring Justices: Frankfurter, Douglas, Jackson, Burton, Clark Dissenting Justices: Vinson, Reed, Minton |
President does not have the right to control private property (1952)
President Truman issued an executive order directing Secretary of Commerce Charles Sawyer to take control of most of the nation's steel mills during the Korean War. This was an attempt by Truman to avoid the problem of a strike by the United Steelworkers of America. On June 2, 1952, the Supreme Court determined that the president did not have the power to take control of private property. Furthermore, the president's military power could not extend to labor disputes.*
Approach to the law
?
9:23 am CST
June 2, 2026
Co-President Charity Colleen "Lovejoy" Crouse
*-Please recall I have never accepted in this regard the "exchange" of "money" for my "work" so as to alienate it as "labor."
And where has the "State" been in regards to this matter?
Comments