Learning Center
Plans & pricing Sign in
Sign Out

D - Supreme Court of Texas


									~-'----   ---   -~--~~-~-------~-   --~------   ---   __________________   ..__   -------- --------------,

                                 THE SUPREME COURT OF
          EDWIN HORTON WITHERSPOON,        §     DOCKET NUMBER 11-0997
          (DEFENDANT/PRINCIPAL/DEBTOR      §     C.O.A. #02-10-00174-CV
           Petitioner,                     §
          v                                §
          STATE OF TEXAS, D/B/A            §
          TARRANT COUNTY, TEXAS            §

                                 MOTION FOR REHEARING
          To the Honorable Justices;
                Now, comes EDWIN HORTON WITHERSPOON, petitioner in the above-
          styled cause number(s) and under the Texas Appellate Rules 79, for
           the Motion of Rehearing in the denial of the Petition for Review
          on March 23,2012. Petitioner received notice of the denial on the
          27th of March, 2012, and presents this his Motion for Rehearing.
                The Honorable Court has jurisdiction of the matter under Tex.
          Appellate Rule 56.1(2)(3). And the court has In Rem subject matter
          jurisdiction under the Recognizance Bond that was submitted to the
          court. Both of these components give the court jurisdiction to
          hear and render an opinion of the points of law that was denied
          in the original petition of the Bill of Reveiw.
               In addition the Recognizance Bond is to adhere to the Texas
          Appellate Rule 54.3, to cover the cost of expenses in the proceed-
          ings. This is to allow the court's fiduciary to utilize Edwin-Horton:
          Witherspoon UCC Trust account, exempt from levy, EIN #243219239,
          to cover and dishcarge any incurred expense or damage to the parties
                                 GROUNDS AND ARGUMENTS
                The trial court dismissed the Bill of Review in error and the
          Court of Appeals rendered a decision that conflicts with important
          points of the law. This denial from both courts renders Petitioner's
          unalienable rights void. These rights that cannot be denied by any
          factor of corporate, artifical, or human entities. Only the divine
          Creator can deny me these rights that were imparted by Him in the
          creation of mankind and through birth of man. Edwin-Horton: Witherspoon,
          contends that under these rights he has the responsibiltiy of the
          functions of EDWIN HORTON WITHERSPOON, which was wrongfully deprived
          of the necessary laws through the trial court proceedings.
                The trial court denied knowledge of the proceedings and failed
          to disclose the use of vital information that would render the ou-
          come differently. Due to the non-disclosure and the voilation of
          the Truth and Lending Act, Regulation Z, the Petitioner was not
          afforded a fair trial on all points of issue, thereby rendering him
          unable to defend against all elements of the adversarial proceedings.
          Therefore, after exhausting all remedies, i.e. Notice for New Trial,
          Appeal, P.D.R., Writ of Habeas S11.07, S2254, Certificate of Appeal-
          ability, and Writ to the Supreme Court of U.S., Petitioner filed
          his Bill of Review. This is in compliance with Texas Rules of Court
          Civil Proc. 329b(f). A bill of review is an equitable action who
          seeks to set aside a judgment that is no longer subject to challenge
          by a motion for new trial or appeal. CALDWELL V BARNES 154 SW3d 93,
          95 (Tex. 2004).
~~-   --~-~~--·-·-~-----~----   ~-~------   ~-   ------   --   -~--   ·------------------------   --------,

                          However, the trial court and the Court of Appeals errored
                in their decision because this is the only remedy that is left by
                the Petitioner to challenge the denial of due process. Under the
                Texas la~ litigant seeking to invoke bill of review to set aside
                judgment must allege and prove a meritorious defense to cause of
                action alleged to support judgment, which h~ or she was prevented
                from asserting by fraud, accident or wrongful act of opposing party,
                without any fault or negligence of his or her own. In re HUSAIN
                BKRTCY S.D, Tex. 1994, 168 B.R. 591. Petitioner was unable to assert
                the acceptance for value on the bonds created in the trial hearing
                due to the non-disclosure of them by the opposing party. Petitioner
                avers through the bill of review that the fraud committed by the
                opposing party rendered him incapable of asserting his rights. The
                withholding of such pertinent information resulted in the depriving
                of life and liberty of Petitioner. Petitioner paid for the filing
                fee of the bill of review and met all required points of law in
                filing the review. However, the trial court denied the right to
                invoke this exhaustion through Tex. Civil Prac. and Rem. Code §14.002,
                which states that the chapter applies only to a suit brought by an
                inmate in a district, county, justice of the peace, or small claims
                court in which an affidavit or unsworn declaration of inability to
                pay cost. This is not the case in said incident. Petitioner paid the
                filing cost thereby exempting him from the Chapter 14 stipulation.
                Moreover, it is a right under the U.S. Const. and the Tex. Const.
                that all peoples have the right to a jury trial. The Petitioner paid
                the jury fee as well in the initital filing fees and requested the
                right to this to the courts. However, the court denied this request
                after payment was rendered.
                       The Court of Appeals rendered a decision that was in error due
                to the lack of jurisdiction. Upon filing a notice of appeal to the
                courts, paying the fees, and submitting a valid argument of the err
                in the trial courts, the C.O.A. was in err of their opinion. The
                citations of the cases submitted was not similar to the Petitioner's
                claim. Only claims of extrinsic fraud can be supported on a bill of
                review. NELSON V CHANEY 193 SW3d 161. Due to the argument of the
                bill of review and the acknowledgement by the C.O.A. in their opinion
                of the EXTRINSIC FRAUD, the court conflicts the constitutional rights
                and abilities to have a jury trial, that consequentally has been
                paid for, and the right to access of courts throught Tex. Rules of
                Civ. Proc. §329b(f). This rule entails that the type of fraud necessary
                to set aside judgment in bill of review action under Texas Law is
                extrinsic and not intrinsic fraud. In re HUSIAN, supra. And, extrinsic
                fraud, tolling limitations period for filing petition for bill of
                review of judgment, is fraud which is collateral to matter tried,
                not something that was actually or potentially at issue in trial,
                and is type of fraud that prevents party from litigating issues such
                as if party did not know of suit. DEFEE V DEFEE (App. 4 Dist. 1998)
                966 SW2d 719.
                        Even this court has given two example of what is meant by a
                court lacking jurisdictional power to render a judgment, where a
                county court renders a divorce decree and where a county court enters
                a judgment regarding title to land McEWEN V HARRISON 162 Tex. 125,
                345 SW2d 706, 709-10 (1961), All other erros must be corrected
                through a bill of review of the time for a direct appeal has elapsed.
                MIDDLETON V MURFT 689 SW2d 213 (Tex. 1985). The C.O.A. and this
                Honorable Court decisions are~~eontrary to the points of law in the
                statutes that govern the right to the people. Moreover to render the

continual decision of denial is to deprive a person of an unalienable
right that cannot be taken other than by the Creator. This is the
intended purpose of the founding fathers to prevent denial of rights
arbitrarly through the courts by rendering decisions contrary to the
intent of the legislative acts. The course of law is set to prevent
denial of rights and to protect against those who have been deprive
of such a basic element of society. In the case at hand the denial
is evident due to the governing rules of the courts. The petitioner
had the right to bill of review, due to time elapsing and the due
diligence to exhaust all rememdies by the structure of law, and the
right to a jury trial, through payment of court filing fees. However
this denial has been continuing from the original filing date of
October 5, 2009.

     Wherefore, premises considered, Petitioner prays that the
Honorable Supreme Court remand the prior decision of the C.O.A.
and grant the right of the petitioner to the rules of the court
and his rights under those rules to the bill of review and the
right to jury trial. And, any other relief the Court deems admissible.
                                                 ~_::..e?t~     ;;>"-
                                                  n-Horton: Witherspoon
                                              Prose, EIN #243219239
                                              Pre-paid, Preferred stock,
                                              Exempt Levy

                       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Edwin-Horton: Witherspoon, do declare under penalty of perjury
that the foregoing is a true and correct occurance of events and
that it was placed in the Ruben M. Torres Unit Mail depository on
the 5th day of April, 2012, mailed postage pre-paid to the below

The Supreme Court
P.O. Box 12248
Austin, Texas 78711-2248
                                               Declarant   ~        -
                                             - - - _...,L_____   ----

                         RECOGNIZANCE BOND
 Edwin-Horton: Witherspoon
 c/o 125 Private Road #4303
 Hondo, Texas state [78861]                                      Issued date: April 5,2012
 Non domestic without the U.S.
Current Officer Holder of Fiduciary
Supreme Court of Texas
P.O. Box 12248
Austin, TX 78711-2248
Value of Bond is $1,250~00 (One Thusand Two Hundred and Fifty) U.S.
                      Dollars/Money of Account
Re: To cover cost of the Court Fees in Case No. 11-0997, ACCEFTED
Attention: Current Officer Holder-Respondent:
Enclosed, the Undersigned Principal, Edwin-Horton: Witherspoon here-
with accepts for value the enclosed request by the Respondent-
The Supreme Court, dated January 27, 2012, by BLAKE A. HAWTHRONE,
and all endorsements front and back, being the only legitimate
acceptor of said bond being the only party to have put any value
into said bond, being the contributing beneficiary of the same.
This is in accordance with Uniform Commercial Code and House Joint
Resolution 192, of 5, June, 1933, and UCC 1-104 and Public Law 73-10.
                            BOND ORDER
Please deposit this bond the above UCC Contract Trust Account to
be used as a set off account against any commercial, corporate, or
Public bills, taxes, or money claims, and the like, on behalf of
EDWIN HORTON WITHERSPOON, #243-21-9239 and the same on behalf of
Edwin-Horton: Witherspoon, #243219239, Secured Party Creditor(see
UCC-1 reference Number 97762356), said presentment/claims to have
been accepted for value, and endorsed by Edwin-Horton: Witherspoon.
Please adjust any commercial, corporate or Public bills, taxes, or
money claims, and the like, on behalf of EDWIN HORTON WITHERSPOON,
#243-21-9239 to zero, charge, settle and close any such account(s)
on the proceedings and return the interest to the principal: Edwin-
Horton: Witherspoon at the below post location. The Current Officer
Holder of Fiduciary shall have thirty (30) days from the date of
receipt of this Bond, as witnessed by the Postage date, to dishonor
this Bond by returning this Bond to the Principal, with an explanation
of all deficiencies, at the stipulated address below by non-domestic
mail. Failure to return the Bond as stated shall constitutes Acceptance
and Honoring of this Bond, the associated presentment(s), claim(s),
transactions or otherwise in accordance with the Law, by The Current
Office Holder, and the Terms and Conditions herein.

This Bond shall be ledgered as an asset as best suits the needs of
Officer Holder, This Bond expires at the moment of the closure of
the Upper-Lower Name expires. Void where Prohibited by law.
            : Witherspoon-Principal
Exemption ID#243219239
c/o 125 Private Road #4303
Hondo, Texas [78861]
Non-domestic without the U.S.
                         THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
                         Post Office Box 12248
                         Austin, Texas 78711
                                                                                                                           (512) 463-1312

                                               Friday, January 27, 2012

Mr. Edwin H. Witherspoon
TDCJ-CID #1017981
125 Private Rd. #4303
Hondo TX 78861                                                                                                                                              . o'\\
                                                                                                                                            . oe'\-
RE:     Case Number: 11-0997                                                                                                          "(\~}.
        Court of Appeals Number: 02-10-00174-CV                                                                            :~.c,,.'\\            :~.         .
                                                                                                                              'f. ,
                                                                                                                                       }.    '0-
                                                                                                                                                     '0- ,.
        Trial Court Number: 153-240762-09
                                                                                                        "\}e           "0-o.v br\.<1            e"' V
                                                                                                  ._;r'O-).-   "(\0        ?>"' •       )?'\-
Style: EDWIN-HORTON WITHERSPOON JUNIOR                                                 \_o'\- '\\'\. -o.cooe\.<1?>?>,                            D
                                                                                        \-'\- \.-o.\.             ~ -zO I
                                                                                                                '; ,
        STATE OF TEXAS D/B/A TARRANT ~~~X§v'\\e                                                                  ~·
                                                                \.~ :~.o'\-~    GO      o\-                            .    '\.e
              .                                        "(\'\,     "(\~ '\-~ <1~                                        ~'3-
Dear Mr. Witherspoon:                           '\.~e       0    e \.\_O '\\ '\
                                      ~e'\\ "-o.'t-e \)'\\ '\.\.o
                                  k_~ -ce).- . '\."(\. \.\}
        On January 25, 2Q~~I\.t\-Sugr~~rt of Tex s ~d your Petition for Review. The
                     '\_"(\. "(\. -o. "(\c, '\,       ..;r~ •     ~vo
filing fee for this docu~btJ$                   .                 h       fl'£ve been paid at the time of filing. The
                               c,v     e                           ~}.
Court has been notified ~d\}§'             ·                    ·na if the fee        is not paid within ten (1 0) days from
                                 i-e                o'\-        ~~
the date of this letter, the   fil1' . ·       b ~issed. See TEX. R. APP. P. 5.
        Please remit the fee     a?'t~ 1;possible. If paying by check or money order, please record
the above referenced docket number on the instrument. The payment should be made payable to
"Clerk, Supreme Court of Texas." If you have already sent your payment, please disregard this
notice. If you are unable to pay the fee, then you may submit an appropriate affidavit of
                                                                         Blake A. Hawthorne, Clerk

                                                                         by Yaira M. Torres, Deputy Clerk

To top