Docstoc

Ben Richard Drum

Document Sample
Ben Richard Drum Powered By Docstoc
					Ben Richard Drum                                            )
              Plaintiff                                     )        CASE NO. ________________
                                                            )
v                                                           )
                                                            )        Civil District Court Number ________
Cynthia Figueroa Calhoun,                                   )
AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE                                   )
COMPANY SAFECO SURETY,                                      )        Dallas County, Texas
and UNITRIN BUSINESS INSURANCE                              )
             Defendant(s), et al                            )

    PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL CIVIL COMPLAINT FOR MONETARY DAMAGES

                                              I.
                                    PARTIES AND CAPACITY
I, Ben Richard Drum, Plaintiff, domiciled at 7214 Woodsprings Drive, Garland, Dallas County,
Texas, complain and allege that a justiciable controversy exists between the parties, and that the
following [Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.001(2) and 41.003] “clear and convincing” facts,
documents and evidence are the truth, and that I am able to affirm and testify to these facts,
documents and evidence under oath in open court. Trial by Jury is now hereby respectfully
demanded if either summary judgment is denied or if mediation fails.

1. Plaintiff’s homesteaded property at present domicile is a subject of this suit. It is this
[Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 15.002(a)(1)] property that has five [T.C.P.R.C. 15.017] libelous,
invalid, inchoate, non-judgment, non-abstracted Notices of Federal Tax Liens filed against it and
Plaintiff in violation of numerous State of Texas laws.

2. These false liens have been inflicting continual, severe, emotional, physical and financial
damage on Plaintiff for several years due to the unfaithful actions of Defendant Dallas County
Clerk, Cynthia Figueroa Calhoun, who has received criminally collusive support from the
Executive Office of Bill Hill, Dallas County District Attorney, by and through two of his
Assistant District Attorneys, Karen Tabary and Pat Batchelor, (who are not presently being
sued in this actions), therefore by their criminal acts of aiding and abetting Defendant Calhoun,
they have barred the Dallas D.A.’s office from representing, defending, filing documents or
pleading for Defendant Calhoun in this action due to a conflict of interest, per
Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 102.004.

                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 1 of 36
3. The three Defendants and their place of business addresses are presently understood by
Plaintiff to be:
    (A)    AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY SAFECO SURETY - 1600 N.
Collins Blvd. Richardson, Texas 75080-3519 Attn: Barbara Rodgers, Senior Surety Claims
Representative, and
    (B) UNITRIN BUSINESS INSURANCE - 10000 N. Central Expressway, Dallas, Texas
75231 Attn: Bond Department, Debbie Lambeth/ Harley Daniel, and
    (C) Cynthia Figueroa Calhoun, under color of official capacity, in her ministerial capacity
as the Dallas County Clerk, (term of office; Jan 01, 2003 to Dec 31, 2006), and in her Texas
Penal Code 7.23 personal and private capacity, 509 Main Street, City of Dallas, County of
Dallas, State of Texas, 75202.

4. Immunity from suit is waived by Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 12 -
Liability Related to a Fraudulent Court Record or a Fraudulent Lien or Claim Filed
Against Real or Personal Property.            Filing fee for this action is $15.00 per Section 12.005(a).
The fee for service of notice of this action may not exceed the cost of postage if service is by
Certified Mail Per Section 12.005(b)(2).

5. Further, because the acts and omissions committed by Defendant Calhoun were under the
color of the office of Dallas County Clerk, in violation of numerous State laws, done in BAD
FAITH, and were done OUTSIDE the scope of her delegated authority and responsibility, she
has in this case, lost Official Immunity. (See City of San Juan v Gonzalez, 22 SW3 69, holding
No. 5).

6. When the Dallas County District Attorney was served by Plaintiff with a Public Information
Act Request for a copy of Dallas County Clerk Calhoun’s Oaths and Bonds, showing the bond
number and the bonding company’s name and address, (Exhibit 1), (Bates-stamp 00001), the
D.A.’s Office, Civil Division, provided a [T.R.Ev. 902(5)] self-authenticating P.I.A. Response
on Dallas County Letterhead, (Exhibit 2-1 thru 2-9), (Bates-stamp 00002 to 00010) and the
[Texas Local Government Code 82.001(e)] bonds that included the bond numbers, and the
names and addresses of the two Defendants shown above, unequivocally proving that the two
Corporate Insurance Defendants are in fact proper parties as Co-Defendants in this suit.


                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 2 of 36
                                        II.
                       ACCEPTANCE OF PUBLIC SERVANT’S OATHS
7. Plaintiff received a copy of the OATH OF OFFICE filed by Cynthia Figueroa Calhoun,
(copies of which are included herein as Exhibit “2-2 and 2-3) (Bates-stamp 00003 and 00004),
and Plaintiff herein ACCEPTS said Oath of Office of Calhoun and all other
Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 108.001 Public Servants that enter, plead, adjudicate, mediate,
negotiate, argue or defend or are involved in this issue in any manner as a binding contract on
each Servant in the performance of their duties and powers in the respective offices owned by
the people that they occupy during their term.

8. Plaintiff further herein claims the full amount of all bonds of any and all other public servants
and all government entities that enter this case in any manner, through pleadings, arguing or
defending Defendant Calhoun.

9. Plaintiff declares that Defendant Calhoun, is in breach of her oath which is a breach of duty,
by committing violations of Texas Property Code 11, 12, 14, 52 and Texas Government Code
51 that have harmed Plaintiff and diminished his rights, as defined in Black’s Law Dictionary
4th, page 235-6, which states, “Breach of Duty. In a general sense, any violation or omission of
a legal or moral duty. More particularly, the neglect or failure to fulfill in a just and proper
manner the duties of an office or fiduciary employment. Every violation by a trustee of a duty
which lays upon him, whether willful and fraudulent or done through negligence or arising
through mere oversight or forgetfulness, is a breach of duty. Hivick v Hemme, 118 Okl. 167;
247 P. 692, 693.”

10. The Texas Government Code 604.006 (Exhibit 3) (Bates-stamp 00011) clearly states that
the Bond covering the clerk’s faithful performance inures to the benefit of the aggrieved, which
in this case, is the Plaintiff.

11. If Defendant Calhoun had no insurance, she would be solely responsible for her torts and the
damages arising from her crimes against Plaintiff; however, she is insured, at minimum, by the
two Corporate Co-Defendants in this cause of action, therefore they are fully liable for each of
the limits to their policies over her, to pay for her damages that occurred by and through her
unfaithful acts and omissions in and during her four years of elected service, in her “color of”

                              Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                      Page 3 of 36
official, ministerial and personal capacities. Defendant Calhoun’s [Texas Local Government
Code 82.003(b)] $1,000,000.00 self-insurance bond, and all other bonds and insurance coverage
yet to be located are also herein claimed for damages.

12. The two Insurance Company Defendants accepted Defendant Calhoun’s application for
bonding, and they accepted the premium payments for said coverage to insure her faithful
performance, thereby contractually obligating themselves to compensate those injured by her
[Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.001(11)] unfaithful and [Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.003(a)(3)]
gross negligent criminal acts and [Texas Penal Code 1.07(34)] omissions, after having received
valid claims from Plaintiff for such by Registered Mail, explaining the tort in detail.

                                                    III.
                                                   VENUE
13. The Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code 12.004 (Exhibit 4) (Bates-stamp 00012)
states that an action under this chapter may be brought in any district court “in the county in
which the recorded document is recorded”[T.C.P.R.C. 15.002(a)(1)], or “in which the real
property is located” (Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 15.11), both of which are Dallas County in this
case. Further, the insured Defendant Calhoun lives in Dallas County, and the two Corporation
Defendants have open places of business in Dallas County. [T.C.P.R.C. 15.005 and 15.032]
Since all six conditions apply, they unequivocally prove the Dallas County Civil District Court in
Dallas, Texas is the only proper venue.

                                                 IV.
                                            JURISDICTION
14. The United States Congress ceded jurisdiction on the filing of Federal Tax Liens to the
State of Texas in this case, by passing the language of Title 26 USC 6323(f) into law by
writing that the Notices of Federal Tax Liens MUST COMPLY WITH STATE LAW. (see
Exhibit 5-S7 and 5- S8), (Bates-stamp 0088 and 00089).

15. Defendant Calhoun is a lawyer, and she knew or should have known that her acts and
omissions against Plaintiff were in violation of Texas Property Code Chapter 11, 12, 14, and
52 and the Texas Government Code Chapter 51, (Exhibit 5-F1 to 5-I8) (Bates stamp 00039 to
00059). Defendant Calhoun has [Texas Penal Code 6.02(a)] intentionally, [Texas Penal Code


                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 4 of 36
6.03(b)] knowingly and willingly, [Texas Penal Code 6.03(c)] recklessly and with [Texas
Penal Code 6.03(d)] criminal negligence, allowed fraudulent liens to be filed against Plaintiff
in the Dallas County Records in violation of numerous Texas Laws, on property situated in
Dallas County, filed by other criminal actors, when no actual “valid” Federal lien exists
against Plaintiff as defined by 28 USC 3301(7), (shown as Exhibit 5-U) (Bates-stamp
00095) that comports with the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, 28 USC 3101
to 3205 (shown as Exhibit 5-O1 thru 5-O8), (Bates-stamp 00065 thru 00072). Not only
did Defendant Calhoun refuse to remove the fraud after the 3 rd Registered Notice
recorded on 07/23/04 (shown as Exhibit 13-15), she recorded another forged notice
against Plaintiff without basis in law or fact on 07/18/05 (shown as Exhibit 5-A5) that
proves she has entered into the category of assisting the commission of felony fraud
[Texas Penal Code 7.02(3)] in Dallas County.

16. Furthermore, those invalid Notices purport to memorialize events (Assessments) that never
happened, (see Exhibit 5-C2), (Bates-stamp 00028), and merely because of their FILING
PRESENCE and LOCATION, their libelous publication allows and affords unmarketable
Notices to be elevated to the level of and given the same legal effect as Court Judgments, by
being filed in the Dallas County Index with Judgment liens, in direct violation of the Texas Civil
Practice and Remedies Code 12.002(a)(1) and (a)(2).

                                        V.
                          STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS TOLLED
17. In this instant case damages to Plaintiff began in the Dallas County Recorders office at or
near 509 Main Street, City of Dallas, County of Dallas, Texas, 75202, on or about January 11,
2001, by the former Dallas County Clerk Earl Bullock accepting and filing the first invalid lien
against Plaintiff. (Exhibit 5-A1), (Bates-stamp 00021). Since then, four more non-abstracted
liens have been accepted and libelously published by Defendant Calhoun in violation of
numerous state laws against Plaintiff and his property listed above, (Exhibit 5-A2 thru A5),
(Bates-stamp 00022 thru 00025).

18. Because all five fraudulent liens continue to be posted in the public index, with Plaintiff’s
SSN posted thereon, they all continue to damage Plaintiff daily, causing a constant potential for


                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 5 of 36
identity theft. Their continual presence causes the statute of limitations on all of the torts arising
from them to be tolled until they are totally removed according to Texas House Bill 1185,
passed by the 75th Leg. (1997), (Exhibit 16-1 thru 16-5), (Bates-stamp 00171 thru 00175).


                                       VI.
                       CAUSE OF ACTION GRANTED BY STATUTE
19. The Texas Civil Practices and Remedies Code Section 12.003(a)(8), (Exhibit 6) (Bates-
stamp 00104) says that Plaintiff “may bring an action to enjoin violations of this chapter or to
recover damages” since the uncertified, non-abstracted liens are against Plaintiff’s real property.
Texas Legislators enacted mandatory bonding provisions on our elected and appointed officials
to cover these damages, for the express reasoning that sooner or later, a Public Servant was going
to cause damages in, by, through or with the exercise of their delegated offices, and when it takes
place, the people, whom governments were instituted for, would have an avenue of recourse to
compensate them.

20. The recovery of those damages had to first be attempted by Plaintiff through filing claims
against the Insurance Companies that contractually bound themselves to compensate those
damaged by the Public Servant, to give them time and opportunity to settle. In this case Plaintiff
did file those claims with the two Corporate Defendants and Plaintiff’s claims were rejected and
unpaid, therefore, filing suit is the only other recourse. It is Plaintiff’s understanding that Texas
Law requires that the Public Servant be sued in tandem with the Insurance Companies.

21. Defendant Calhoun has violated the mandatory, official and ministerial terms and conditions
of the people’s office by knowingly and willingly allowing fraudulent liens against Plaintiff into
the Dallas County Records Index, with intentional, knowing and willing, criminal intent and with
deliberate indifference and gross negligence to Plaintiff’s rights, constituting the [Texas Penal
Code 6.04] CAUSATION, which states at (a), “A person is criminally responsible if the result
would not have occurred but for his conduct, operating either alone or concurrently with
another cause…”

22. Defendant Calhoun was notified by Plaintiff through Registered Mail on three separate
occasions shown at Exhibit 13-9 thru 13-10, (Bates stamp 00152 thru 00153); Exhibit 13-11 thru


                            Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                    Page 6 of 36
13-14, (Bates stamp 00154 thru 00157) and Exhibit 13-15 thru 13-19, (Bates stamp 00158 thru
162), with detailed explanations of how the Notices filed against him violate State Law and also
provided sufficient supportive evidence to prove to a “learned scholar of the law” why they were
unlawful. This gave Defendant Calhoun the [Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.001(11)(A)] awareness
of the “extreme degree of risk” involved in accepting fraudulent liens into County Records, and
gave her ample time and opportunity to “consider the probability and magnitude of the potential
harm to others”.

23. But even if Plaintiff had not notified Defendant Calhoun of the laws that govern her duties in
the people’s office of County Clerk, and of the fraud filed against him, she has no ability to plead
ignorance of the law, because Texas Courts have consistently held in “Vernon’s Annotated
Texas Penal Code, 8.03, Notes of Decisions, #3”, that:
                 (paragraph 1), “Ignorance of the law is no excuse, and every person is required, at
        his peril, to take cognizance of it”. Chaplin v State (1879) 7 Cr. R. 87; Thompson v State
        (1888) 26 Cr. R. 94, 9 S.W. 486; Hughes v State (1912) 67 Cr. R. 333, 149 S.W. 173;
        Collmorgen v State (1914) 74 Cr. R. 304, 168 S.W. 519; Smith v State (1925) 99 Cr. R.
        114, 286 S.W. 742; Gray v State ex rel. Brown (Civ.App.1966) 406 S.W. 2d 934, error
        dismissed, and
                 (paragraph 2), “No one is excused by his ignorance of the law; knowledge of the
        law being conclusively presumed. Crain v State (1913) 69 Cr. R. 55, 153 S.W. 155,” and
                 (paragraph 3), “The acts of every person must be reviewed from the standpoint
        that he knew the law. Taff v State (1913) 69 Cr. R. 528, 155 S.W. 214,” and
                 (paragraph 6), “Defendant is charged with constructive knowledge of the law
        AND CASE LAW.” Wilson v State (App. 5 Dist 1992) 825 S.W.2d 155, review refused,
therefore, NO ONE, (especially not lawyers, and especially not public servants) can plead
ignorance of the law, and at least not in the category of law that governs their duties and
powers of office.      This totally overcomes the possibility for any [Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd.
41.001(11)(B)] defense claim that Defendant Calhoun had “no actual subjective awareness of the
risk involved”, when she “proceeded with conscious indifference to the rights, safety and welfare
of Plaintiff”.




                             Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                     Page 7 of 36
24. Defendant Calhoun committed her acts and [Texas Penal Code 1.07(34)] omissions with an
[Texas Penal Code 7.02(a)(2)] intent to promote or assist the offenses, and she had a [Texas
Penal Code 7.02(a)(3)] known legal duty to prevent the commission of the offenses and failed to
make reasonable effort to prevent their commission.

25. These fraudulent encumbrances filed against Plaintiff’s property have inflicted constant and
continual, egregious, emotional (via divorce and loss of consortium), mental and financial (via
loss of time and labor) damages on Plaintiff before and since Defendant Calhoun was given her
first NOTICE on January 20, 2004 (Exhibit 13-9 thru 13-10) (Bates-stamp 00152 and 00153).

26. According to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41.003, (Exhibit 7)
(Bates-stamp 00105) this degree of UNFAITHFULNESS that Calhoun has acted with against
Plaintiff directly causes the County Clerk and her two or more Co-Defendant insurance providers
to be liable for [Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.001(5)] Exemplary Damages, since her actions were
perpetrated, at bare minimum with gross negligence.

27. Gross negligence contains the minimum elements of negligence. Defendant Calhoun can
clearly be shown to have operated in negligence, which is proven by the presence of all three
elements, according to holding Number 2 of Jaimes v Fiesta Mart, 21 SW3d 301.
       The first element is that Defendant Calhoun owed Plaintiff the following “duties”
               according to mandates enacted by the Texas Legislature:
       (A) a duty to refuse to accept un-abstracted Notices purporting to be liens per;
               (Texas Property Code 11, (Exhibit 5F1 thru 5F5)(Bates stamp 00039 thru 00043),
               (Texas Property Code 12, (Exhibit 5G1 and 5G2)(Bates stamp 00044 and 00045),
               (Texas Property Code 14, (Exhibit 5H1 thru 5H5)(Bates stamp 00046 thru 00050)
               (Texas Property Code 52, (Exhibit 5I1 thru 5I8)(Bates stamp 00051 thru 00058),
       (B) a duty to remove invalid Notices upon being shown their fraudulent content and
               absence of Abstract, per L.O. 98-016 (Exhibit 5R1 thru 5R7)(Bates stamp 00075
               thru 00081) and HB 1185 (Exhibit 16-1 thru 16-5)(Bates stamp 00171 thru
               00175) and the action taken in case No. F-0500862-GJR, (Exhibit 5B)(Bates
               stamp 00026)
       (C) a duty to contact Plaintiff notifying him of the fraudulent documents in public


                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 8 of 36
              records, (Texas Government Code 51.901 et seq, (Exhibit 8-3 and 8-4)
              (Bates stamp 00108 and 00109) and
       (D) a duty to Plaintiff to contact the filers and give them opportunity or compel them to
              validate their claim by supplying supporting document proof of their alleged
              validity, as in a Judgment or an Abstract derived from the purported Judgment.
              (Texas Government Code 51.901 et seq,) (Exhibit 8-3 and 8-4)(Bates stamp
              00108 and 00109)
       The second element is that Defendant Calhoun “breached that duty”. This is shown by
              the facts that Defendant Calhoun performed NONE of the above four duties she
              owed Plaintiff.
       The third element is that “the breach of duty” described above “proximately caused the
              Plaintiff’s damages”. This element is clearly shown herein in great detail below
              how Defendant Calhoun’s failure to act directly and indirectly damaged Plaintiff
              in the manners described.

28. Defendant Calhoun therefore cannot legitimately claim:
       (1) that she was ignorant of the fraudulent documents filed against Plaintiff, (par.22),
       (2) ignorance of all of the laws that govern her duties, acts and omissions, (par.23),
       (3) that she did not occupy the office during the dates in question, (par. 7)
       (4) that during her term in office she did not govern and accept the fraudulent documents
          filed against Plaintiff, (par. 17) and (Exhibit 5A1 thru 5A5), (Bates stamp 00021 thru
          00025),
       (4) that to stop the damage, after notice, she removed the fraudulent documents, because
          they are still posted in Dallas County Records Indexes as of the day of filing this
          suit, (see the Certification date posted on Exhibit 5A1 through 5A5.
       (5) that she has not failed or neglected to perform her duties she owed Plaintiff, (par.15),
       (6) that the Notices of Lien were not fraudulent, (par. 27), and
       (7) that filing false liens against another person is NOT a felony, (par. 35) and
          (Exhibit 5B) (Bates stamp 00026)
and therefore, all of the elements are clear and convincingly met for GROSS NEGLIGENCE.




                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 9 of 36
                                            VII.
                              CRIMINAL COMPLAINTS
29. Defendant Calhoun’s unfaithful actions, errors, omissions, misfeasance, malfeasance with
intentional, knowing and willing, [Texas Penal Code 6.03(c)] reckless and [Texas Penal
Code 6.03(d)] criminal, gross negligence constitutes the commission of the two jailable
Misdemeanor and Felony crimes of [Texas Penal Code 39.03] Official Oppression and [Texas
Penal Code 39.02(1)(b)] Abuse of Official Capacity. Plaintiff recently filed these criminal
complaints with the Garland Police (Exhibit 8-1 thru 8-11), (Bates-stamp 00106 thru 00116).
       (See Alamo Workforce Development v Vann, 21 SW3 428 holding No. 10, which
       states, “Public officials who act wholly without authority become personally liable for
       their torts and for willful and malicious acts.”)

                                               VIII.
                                          QUO WARRANTO
30. QUO WARRANTO action was filed by Plaintiff against Defendant Calhoun on January 31,
2006 in Case No. 06-01072 in the Dallas County 191st District Court to have her removed from
the people’s office of County Clerk. On or about February 01, 2006, Judge Catharina Haynes
granted leave to Plaintiff to amend his Quo Warranto proceedings to return with sufficient
specificity to proceed against Defendant Calhoun, (Exhibit 9-1 thru 9-18), (Bates-stamp 00117 to
00133). That specificity known as “Criminal Complaints” against Defendant Calhoun, now filed
in the City of Garland Police Department, are also being brought in to that Quo Warranto Action
to support the claims therein.

                                            IX.
                                   CRIMINAL ASSOCIATION
31. The Dallas County District Attorney, Bill Hill, by and through his two Dallas County
Assistant District Attorneys, Karen Tabary and Pat Batchelor, has worked in a [Texas Penal
Code 1.07(6)] Criminal Association to protect and aid the crimes of the fraudulent lien-filers
and the crimes of Defendant Calhoun, by allowing or having them provide letters that ratify and
protect the complained-of fraud.

32. Their criminal involvement is laid out in thorough detail in the two Sworn Affidavit
Criminal Complaints filed against them, accusing:

                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 10 of 36
         (a) the criminal actor Pat Batchelor of violating the Texas Code of Criminal
Procedure 32.02 and thus violating one count each of [Texas Penal Code 37.10] Tampering
with a Government Document, [Texas Penal Code 37.11] Impersonating a Judge, [Texas
Penal Code 39.02] Abuse of Official Capacity and [Texas Penal Code 39.03] Official
Oppression to the detriment and harm of Plaintiff. (Exhibit 18-1 through 18-27), (Bates stamp
00185 through 00211), and accusing:
         (b) the criminal actor Karen Tabary of violating one count each of the [Texas Penal
Code 39.02(1)(b)] Abuse of Official Capacity and [Texas Penal Code 39.03(a)(2)] Official
Oppression, to the detriment and harm of Plaintiff. (Exhibit 19-1 through 19-13), (Bates stamp
00212 through 00224).

33. Per the Texas Penal Code 7.03(2), it is no defense to the prosecution of Defendant
Calhoun that neither the alleged IRS Agents nor the two Assistant D.A.’s have yet been
prosecuted for their crimes, or may later be ruled to be immune from prosecution.

34. Defendant Calhoun knew or should have known that the un-abstracted Notices filed against
Plaintiff were fruits of criminal acts, sent by criminal tort-feasors, in a criminal scheme to gain
access, control, ownership, custody or title to Plaintiff’s property without complying with
Plaintiff’s due process rights, and therefore, she joined their criminal endeavor. (See Holding
No. 10 in Nguyen v State, 21 SW3 609, 610).

                                   X.
                     NON-JUDICIAL LIENS ARE DEEMED
              IRREGULAR, FRAUDULENT AND SHOULD BE REMOVED
35. Defendant Calhoun is the ELECTED PUBLIC SERVANT who is responsible for acting as
the PEOPLE’S “GATEKEEPER”, having the Official and Ministerial responsibility to refuse to
accept and file fraudulent Liens, and to UNFILE and remove them when the Clerk has received
clear and convincing proof of fraud contained therein, through Certified Mail. It is noteworthy
that Defendant Calhoun has had false liens filed against her by Tanenankhana Bernard
Andrews, and it is presumed she swore out a Criminal Complaint against the false-lien-filer due
to the Indictment against him naming her as the Complainant, and thus she clearly understands
the need to have the false document(s) removed from public records and she understands the un-
filing and removal process. See Exhibit 5B, (Bates-stamp 00026).

                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 11 of 36
36. Attorney General Opinion Letter L.O. 98-016 (Exhibit 5-R1 thru 5-R7), (Bates-stamp
00075 thru 00081), written in response to a former Dallas County Clerk asking about how to
handle questionable documents being entered into county records, clearly declares that liens not
accompanied by a judgment from a proper court are to be deemed irregular and should
not be accepted by clerks operating in their ministerial capacity. That AGOL 98-016 cites
House Bill 1185 (passed on 75th Leg. 1997) on page 5, that requires the removal of those false
liens from the Indexes. That law enacted Texas Government Code 51.901(c) which states “a
document is presumed to be fraudulent if…” and then lists the factors which cause a Lien to be
fraudulent, which proves that the Liens against Plaintiff are clearly fraudulent.

37. Furthermore, the Attorney General Opinion Letter JM-224 Exhibit “15-1 thru 15-3”
(Bates-stamp 00168 thru 00170), is the official response to a request for determining if a
Judgment Lien Index was required to be maintained separate from the lien index.

38. The unequivocal answer from Jim Mattox is clear in his SUMMARY (on Bates stamp page
00170), that states, “An abstract of judgment is required to be recorded and filed in a book
separate from real property records unless a microfilm method of recordation is in effect
pursuant to Article 1941(a) V.T.C.S.” Plaintiff asserts that there are no Abstracts of Judgment
(see Exhibit 5D, Bates stamp 00032), from any case in any court filed against Plaintiff or his
property, from any venue or jurisdiction, therefore none could be used to support the
fraudulent liens, and therefore the non-abstracted liens should not have been filed to begin with.

39. To show good faith research, Plaintiff searched for a recorded Judgment and/or Abstract
of Judgment under the name “Ben R. Drum” and found none within the following Dallas County
Records Index categories: “ABSTRACT”, “ASSESSMENT”, “ASSESSMENT LIEN”,
“CERTIFICATE        OF     ADJUDICATION”,                   CERTIFIED             COPY         OF   JUDGMENT”,
“EXTENSION OF LIEN”, “FED TAX LN”, “FEDERAL TAX LIEN PER. PROP.”,
“JUDGMENT”,        “LIEN     AFFIDAVIT”,              “LIEN        CLAIM”,             “LIEN   NOTICE”,   “LIEN
VOLUNTARY”, “PARTIAL ASSIGNMENT OF JUDGMENT”, “PARTIAL RELEASE OF
FEDERAL TAX”, “PARTIAL RELEASE OF JUDGMENT”, “PARTIAL SUB OF LIEN”,
“PTL REL FTL”, “REL FED TAX LIEN PERSONAL”, “RELEASE LIENS”, “RELEASE OF


                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 12 of 36
ASSESSMENT LIEN”, “RELEASE OF JUDGMENT”, “TAX COLLECTOR”, “TAX LIEN
OUT OF STATE”, “TAX WARRANT”, “TRANSFER OF LIEN”, “UCC-3 PERSONAL
PROPERTY”, “UCC-3 PERSONAL PROPERTY NON STANDARD”, “UCC-3”, “UCC 3
NON STD” and finally “WRIT OF ATTACHMENT”. The index formerly known as “NOFTL”,
not only was empty when discovered, but was mysteriously removed from the Dallas County
Index list, shortly after Plaintiff made this index known to Defendant Calhoun, and thus could
not be searched.

                                      XI.
                   THREE NOTICES PROVE TIME AND OPPORTUNITY
40. Plaintiff has given both of the Insurance Company Defendants lawful time and opportunity
to settle this matter out of court with three Lawful Notices by Registered Mail that detail the
specific nature of the unlawful and illegal filings that Defendant Calhoun recorded and maintains
in the record in violation of numerous Texas Statutes, backed with sufficient evidence.

41. The First Notice was given to AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY SAFECO
SURETY and to UNITRIN BUSINESS INSURANCE, on or about Dec 29, 2005 by Registered
Mail # RR 998 761 635 US and Registered Mail # RR 998 761 649 US, respectively, shown in
Exhibit 5 on (Bates-stamp page 00019 and 00020). The last two pages of Exhibit 5 are the
response letters from the two Insurance Company Defendants that contain the Claim Number
7834527 assigned to Plaintiff, see Exhibit 5X and 5Y. (Bates-stamp 00102 and 00103)

42.   Plaintiff gave Second Notice to AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY
SAFECO SURETY and UNITRIN BUSINESS INSURANCE on or about January 18, 2006 by
Registered Mail # RR 998 761 935 US and # RR 998 761 927 US, respectively, hereinafter
named Exhibit 12-1 thru 12-8, (Bates-stamp 00136 thru 00143).

43. Plaintiff gave Third Notice to AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY SAFECO
SURETY & UNITRIN BUSINESS INSURANCE on or about February 15, 2006, by Registered
Mail # RR 998 761 710 US and by # RR 998 761 666 US, respectively, hereinafter named
Exhibit 13-1 thru 13-22, (Bates-stamp 00144 to 00165).




                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 13 of 36
44. These three notices have given both Defendant Corporations sufficient time and opportunity
to produce evidence and sworn counter-affidavits that their Insured Defendant Calhoun has not
violated these Texas laws, nor have they agreed to compensate Plaintiff for the unfaithful
tortuous and criminal acts committed by her.

45. Exhibit 11 (Bates-stamp 00135) is the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Section
12.002 that proves LIABILITY. Defendant Calhoun has willingly accepted and libelously
recorded fraudulent instruments and has certainly “presented” them by publishing them in the
public’s database and “uses” them to declare to the public, their alleged validity.

46. Defendant Calhoun, in her ministerial capacity is presumed to know the law (see page
00077), and she should have known that her “unfaithful” actions and omissions taken against
Plaintiff constituted misfeasance, malfeasance, failure to perform and errors, in the context of
gross negligence directly violating Texas state law that induces and invokes liability upon her
and her insurers.

47. On October 31, 2006 Plaintiff spoke to the Dallas County Commissioner’s Court and left a
copy of his PRESENTATION OF CLAIM, Exhibit 14-1 and 14-2 (Bates-stamp 00166 and
00167), that was hand delivered to each Commissioner on January 06, 2006. Sixty days lapsed
and the Commissioner’s Court neither paid Plaintiff’s claim nor responded to Plaintiff’s notice.

48. The Dallas County Commissioner’s Court was given timely and fair notice of the criminal
torts taking place at the hands of their subordinate, Defendant Calhoun, and since they have
utterly failed to reign in on her unlawful acts and omissions since that time, they have abused
their discretion by refusing to act.         The Commissioner’s Court cannot claim ignorance or
incapacity to have already remedied this egregious problem.

49. The Defendant Insurance Company (Safeco) responded to Plaintiff’s Claims on Defendant
Calhoun’s bond with a denial of payment of claim by stating in a February 22, 2006 letter
(Exhibit 13-21 and 13-22), (Bates-stamp 00164 and 00165), signed by Barbara Rodgers that, “a
Surety’s liability is no greater than that of its Principal. Therefore, based on the above, we
respectfully deny your claim as being a VALID claim against Cynthia Calhoun’s bond.”



                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 14 of 36
                                   XII.
           TURNING POINT IN THE INSURANCE COMPANY’S LIABILITY
50. Since the Defendant American States Insurance Company uses a responsive argument that
their absence of liability is directly linked to Defendant Calhoun’s absence of liability, and that
Defendant Calhoun’s absence of liability is clearly linked to Judge Jorge Solis’ ruling that the
suit originating in the 191st was dismissed, which is obviously linked to the alleged “validity” of
those five Notices of Federal Tax Liens in the Dallas County Records and the initial inability of
Plaintiff to consequently have the fraudulent liens removed through that suit as the basis that
they do NOT owe Plaintiff the bond money secured for Defendant Calhoun, then the obverse
of that premise should also be true as well in that, if Plaintiff were to be able to secure the
removal of the Notices based upon them being fraudulent, that the Insurance companies should
have no problem in immediately acquiescing to the full liability of Defendant Calhoun’s
unfaithful actions and omissions that directly caused the damages to Plaintiff.

                                    XIII.
                 REMOVAL OF THE FALSE LIENS FINALLY SECURED
51.   On November 07, 2006, Plaintiff finally secured the signed ORDER for the FULL
REMOVAL of all five Notices of Federal Tax Liens filed against Plaintiff, by filing a Texas
Government Code 51.901 et seq. action in the 192nd Judicial Court of Dallas County, (Exhibit
17-1 thru 17-9), (Bates-stamp 00176 through 00184), and in that Judicial ORDER, the Findings
of Fact and Conclusions of Law clearly state that the Notices of Federal Tax Liens filed against
Plaintiff’s home were in fact FRAUDULENT, and further ordered their removal from the
Indexes, now once and for all proving that Defendant Calhoun certainly WAS operating
OUTSIDE of the lawful confines of her office the entire time, to the [Texas Penal Code
1.07(25)] harm and detriment of Plaintiff, and therefore all three Defendants are made fully
liable for the tort damages.

52. This single, two page, signed JUDICIAL ORDER to have the false liens removed from the
records, for their fraudulent content and for absence of Abstract, has once-and-for-all provided
irrefutable and affirmative proof that goes so far beyond the level of “CLEAR AND
CONVINCING PROOF”, according to the Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.001(2) and 41.003(a)(3)
and (b), that will produce in the minds of the trier of facts a firm belief or conviction as to the


                               Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                       Page 15 of 36
truth of Plaintiff’s allegations sought to be established from the contents of this suit and its 224
pages of exhibits, that should end all questions or opposition that could possibly be claimed or
fabricated against it. That ORDER is now un-appealable RES JUDICATA, having not been
reversed for 30 days.

53. In the light of the overwhelming evidence that this 192nd Court ORDER provides, the two
Insurance Company Defendants are now obligated under the ruling “Stowers Doctrine” in
Stowers Furniture Co. v American Indem. Co. 15 SW2 544 (Tex. Comm. App. 1929) to settle
this lawsuit in the manner that an ordinary prudent person would settle, and upon failing to do so,
both AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY SAFECO SURETY, and UNITRIN
BUSINESS INSURANCE would be fully liable for the amount of damages eventually recovered
in excess of policy limits.

54. Further, the six guidelines that the Insurance Company Defendants will be scrutinized under,
to determine whether or not they are negligent in failing to accept an offer to settle, according to
Globe Indem. Co. v Gen-Aero. Inc., 459 SW2d 205 are:
       (1) an opportunity to settle during the course of an investigation or a trial
       (2) failure to carry on negotiations to settle or to make a counter-offer after receiving an
           offer to settle
       (3) failure to investigate all facts necessary to protect the insured against liability
       (4) the existence of a greater duty to settle where liability is clear
       (5) whether the insurer acts negligently, fraudulently, or in bad faith and
       (6) the increased possibility of the insurer being held liable for negligence where there
           are conflicts in evidence that increase the uncertainty of the insured’s defense to the
           injured party’s claim.

55. Plaintiff declares that he is aware that the “Stowers duty” is not triggered unless the three
following prerequisites are met, according to State Farm Lloyd’s Ins. Co. v Maldonado, 963
SW 2d 38, 41 (Tex. 1998), as follows:
       (1) the claim against the insured is within the scope of coverage,
           (Plaintiff’s original claim was) (See Exhibit 5) (Bates stamp 00013 thru 00016)
       (2) the demand is within policy limits, (Plaintiff’s original claim certainly was)


                              Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                      Page 16 of 36
           (See Exhibit 5)(Bates stamp 00013 thru 00016) and finally,
       (3) the terms of the demand are such that an ordinary prudent insurer would accept
           it, considering the likelihood and degree of the insured’s potential exposure to an
           excess judgment. (Any insurer would reasonably desire to keep the pay out of
           damages to a much lower $500,000.00 than to pay out the millions of dollars now
           claimed herein).

                                   XIV.
                         REQUEST FOR ADMISSIONS,
                INTERROGATORIES AND PRODUCTION OF RECORDS
56. Plaintiff now tenders Plaintiff’s Request for Admissions, Interrogatories and Production
of Records from all three Defendants pursuant to the TRCP 194, as herein attached.

                                           XV.
                                  SUBPOENA DUCES TECUM
57. Plaintiff now also petitions this Honorable Court to issue Subpoena Duces Tecum to
Defendant Cynthia Calhoun, Clerk of Dallas County, as Plaintiff’s Hostile Witness, under the
“Separation Rule” from all other witnesses and Defendants, to produce the items specified
therein.

58. Plaintiff now also petitions this Honorable Court to issue Subpoena Duces Tecum to
Defendant AMERICAN STATES INSURANCECOMPANY SAFECO SURETY, to produce
evidence of the Corporation’s total net worth according to Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.011(a)(6).

59. Plaintiff now also petitions this Honorable Court to issue Subpoena Duces Tecum to
Defendant UNITRIN BUSINESS INSURANCE, to produce evidence of the Corporation’s total
net worth according to Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.011(a)(6).

60. If the “County of Dallas” enters this suit as a Defendant, then the full amount of all bonds
held by the County of Dallas become claimed by Plaintiff, and in that case, Plaintiff petitions this
Honorable Court to invoke the District Court’s constitutional supervisory power over the Dallas
County Commissioner’s Court, and issue Subpoena Duces Tecum to the (then added)
Defendant, “Dallas County” to produce evidence of the entity’s total net worth according to
Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.011(a)(6), including but not limited to all real estate holdings of any

                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 17 of 36
kind, and including but not limited to disclosure of all Comprehensive Annual Financial Report
funds (aka CAFR investments in all accounts in all entities and in all countries).

61. Plaintiff also petitions this Honorable Court to issue Subpoena Duces Tecum to Karen
Tabary, Dallas County Assistant District Attorney, as Plaintiff’s Hostile Witness, under the
“Separation Rule” from all other witnesses and from all Defendants, to produce the items
specified therein.

62. Plaintiff also petitions this Honorable Court to issue Subpoena Duces Tecum to Pat
Batchelor, Dallas County Assistant District Attorney, as Plaintiff’s Hostile Witness, under the
“Separation Rule” from all other witnesses and from all Defendants, to produce the items
specified therein.

63. Because these two lawyers, Karen Tabary and Pat Batchelor, are Bill Hill’s Assistant
District Attorneys that are being subpoenaed as Plaintiff’s Hostile Witnesses to Defendant
Calhoun’s torts and crimes, and because they have knowingly and willingly used their color of
office to participate in ratifying Defendant Calhoun’s damages to Plaintiff, they therefore are all
barred from being Defendant Calhoun’s Defense Counsel due to a valid Conflict of Interest.

                                                   XVI.
                                                 DAMAGES
64. Plaintiff brings suit against AMERICAN STATES INSURANCE COMPANY SAFECO
SURETY and UNITRIN BUSINESS INSURANCE to compensate Plaintiff for the tort damages
that far exceed Defendant Calhoun’s required $500,000.00 bond required by Texas Local
Government Code Chapter 82.001(c)(3) (Exhibit 10), (Bates-stamp 00134). In addition to this,
the one million dollar bonding provided for by Texas Local Government Code 82.003,
Contingency Fund is also invoked and claimed herein by Plaintiff against Defendant Calhoun.

                                              XVII.
                                        LOSS OF MARRIAGE
65. Plaintiff has suffered through an agonizing divorce as a direct result of Defendant Cynthia
Calhoun’s unfaithful performance.            Plaintiff assigns the estimated monetary value of this




                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 18 of 36
specific [Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.001(12)] damage of the incalculable loss of trust, loss of
consortium, loss of companionship and loss of friendship to at least two million dollars.

                                         XVIII.
                               LOSS OF FAMILY RELATIONS
66. Plaintiff has suffered Familial Alienation: Plaintiff’s now Ex-Wife and her parents all hold
great animosity against Plaintiff for the libel and slander that Cynthia Calhoun has allowed to be
published against Plaintiff. Had Cynthia Calhoun acted according to her oath and upheld Texas
State Property Laws and the orders in L.O. 98-016, she would have removed the one false lien
that had been filed just before she took office and she would have rejected all other false liens as
they were attempted to be filed against Plaintiff after she took office, that were not accompanied
by Abstracts of Judgment, gained through the Federal Debt Collection Procedures Act, 28 USC
3101 to 3205, based on Certified Assessment, compliant with 26 CFR 301.6203-1.

                                                 XIX.
                                             LOSS OF TIME
67. Plaintiff has lost an enormous amount of valuable time having to file FOIA’s, PIA’s,
prepare documents, affidavits, research the law and the caselaw, file and fight this issue that
could have been channeled into the two businesses he manages. ($200.00 an hour times 4 hours
per day times 5 days a week times 50 weeks times 4 years totals $800,000.00).

                                         XX.
                            LOSS OF BUSINESS OPPORTUNITY
68. Plaintiff has suffered great loss of business opportunity. The two companies that Plaintiff
run have greatly suffered due to the number of hours of each day that Plaintiff has had to devote
to resolving this issue, and work at gaining back what was lost instead of promoting the business.

69. Had those 4000 lost hours been channeled into marketing Plaintiff’s business products, the
value of the companies he runs and manages very possibly could have been increased by as
much as 10 Million Dollars, of which Plaintiff’s portion would have been $3,000.000.00, as the
exclusive product provided to the nation would have grown far beyond where it is today. (See
holding No. 30 in Foust v Estate of Walters, 21 SW3 495, 499).




                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 19 of 36
70. Further, Plaintiff has had to hire typing personnel to type, handle the paperwork and
organize the exhibits, so far spending $30,000.00 over the last four years, that would not have
had to be expended had Defendant Calhoun obeyed the Texas Property Code 11, 12, 14, 52 and
Texas Government Code 51 that forbids the acceptance and recording of fraudulent liens.

                                             XXI.
                                       GOOD CREDIT HARM
71. Plaintiff’s good credit has been directly damaged. The three main credit bureaus report
these Notices as if they were Judgment “Liens”.                 In essence, they RE-PUBLISH the original
[Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 9.002(2) and 9.002(B)(1)] libel that Defendant Calhoun publishes. The
money Plaintiff would have saved had refinancing gone through when it was applied for, has
already been calculated by a Refinance Manager to be $60,000.00, as affirmed in his Sworn
Affidavit. The interest that this money could have produced in a savings account is yet another
layer of loss suffered.

72. Plaintiff’s harmed credit has also limited the quantity, frequency and amount of items that
were bought and resold as a factory surplus middleman / broker / recycler that Plaintiff also runs.

73. Plaintiff’s SSN has been posted along with his Name and Address, for the last four years in
violation of law and has had numerous unsolicited contacts caused directly from the uncertified,
non-judgment, non-abstracted Notices filed in Dallas County Records, proving that he is being
continually exposed to the risks of Identity Theft.

                                     XXII.
                TEX.CIV.PRAC.REM.CD. 41.001(12) EMOTIONAL HARM
74.   Plaintiff has suffered great [Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(a)(3)(C) and 41.001(12)]
emotional harm, stress, tension headaches, anger, fear, resentment, isolation and frustration
directly caused from this unrelenting problem that would not exist if the Dallas County Clerk
Calhoun had been faithful to perform the duties she was elected to perform by not allowing false
claims on Plaintiff’s property to be recorded without a lawful abstract of judgment, or at second
best, remove them after being made aware of them.




                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 20 of 36
75. If that EMOTIONAL HARM is valued at a mere $40.00 per hour, times 18 hours per day,
times 7 days per week, times 52 weeks per year, times four years, it totals to $1,048,320.00
alone. This amount is also respectfully demanded by Plaintiff, for the fact-trier’s decision within
the lawful bounds of the law.

76. When Plaintiff is not working in his business, this unresolved issue consumes at least half of
Plaintiff’s thoughts and interferes with daily relaxation, church time and every other aspect of
Plaintiff’s life, including troubled sleep.

77. Plaintiff asserts that all six conditions of Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.011(a) are present in
this case. Number (1) is the nature of the wrong, addressed by Texas Property Code Chapter
52. Number (2) is the character of the conduct involved, which is Defendant Calhoun’s “total
disregard of numerous Texas laws”. Number (3) is the degree of culpability of the wrongdoer,
proven by Exhibit 2-2 and 2-3, as she is directly responsible for her gross negligent acts and
omissions. Number (4) is the situation and sensibilities of the parties concerned, shown by
Plaintiff’s severe emotional damages and Defendant Calhoun’s clearly evident “deliberate
indifference” to the law and rights of Plaintiff. Number (5) is the extent to which such conduct
offends a public sense of justice and propriety, shown by Exhibit 5B, (Bates stamp 00026).
And Number (6) is the net worth of the defendant(s), which to date is not known, but should be
made public by Plaintiff’s TRCP Rule 194 Request for Production of Documents and/or
Subpoena Duces Tecum under Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 24.02.

                                     XXIII.
                      MONETARY RELIEF, REMEDY, RESTITUTION
78. Plaintiff prays for this Court to issue an ORDER for Defendants to release the entire amount
of all bonds, including, but not limited to the faithful performance bonds and the errors and
omissions bonds to Plaintiff for:

                                       (ECONOMIC DAMAGES)
        (a) $500,000.00 for the actual tort of unfaithful, gross negligent acts of filing false liens
            and   refusing    to     unfile      them       that     originated          the   Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd.
            12.002(b)(1)(B) damage,
        (b) Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(b)(1)(B) Loss of time restitution, $800,000.00,

                             Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                     Page 21 of 36
(c) Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(b)(1)(B), Loss of business opportunity restitution,
   valued at $3,000,000.00,
(d) Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(b)(1)(B) Restitution for typing and secretarial fees
   from the beginning of this fraud until the present, $30,000.00,
(e) Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(b)(1)(B) Credit Damage restitution, $60,000.00,
(f) all Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(b)(2) and Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.006 Court
   Costs, filing fees, service fees, subpoena fees, the sub-total of which is unknown as of
   this date, but is being estimated at around $100.00.

                        (NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES)
(g) Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(a)(3)(C) DIVORCE restitution, $2,000,000.00
(h) Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd.             12.002(a)(3)(C)              Familial      Alienation   restitution,
   $1,000.000.00
(i) Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(a)(3)(C) personal Emotional Harm restitution,
   $1,048,320.00,
       The subtotal of which is limited by Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.008(b)(1)(B) at
       $750,000.00,

                            (EXEMPLARY DAMAGES)
(j) Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 12.002(b)(4) exemplary damages: if it is found by the jury
   and/or the Court that the Insurance Company Defendants refused to settle out of court
   through UNFAIR INSURANCE PRACTICES, or for failing to settle a claim in good
   faith, both of which are prohibited in the Texas Insurance Code 21.21 and 541.060
   –061 and the Stowers and Globe Holdings, or through either fraud,
   misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, or in conspiracy to cover up the crimes
   and torts of their insured, Cynthia Calhoun, or if it is found by the Jury that
   Defendant Calhoun acted with deliberate indifference to Plaintiff’s rights or gross
   negligence, then exemplary damages are prayed for herein, calculated by
   Tex.Civ.Prac.Rem.Cd. 41.008(a) and (b) at: two times the actual damages plus a
   maximum of $750,000.00, which sub-totals to date to $9,530,200.00,
(k) ANY and ALL other remedy, relief, restitution, reward, compensation, award,
   benefit, monies or judgment, including but not limited to injunctive and declaratory,

                    Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                            Page 22 of 36
           under common law, statutory law or equity, that this Honorable Court and/or the Jury
           deems proper and just, but that is not pled for in this suit, or shown, listed or
           described above in (a) through (j) above.

                                           XXIV.
                                    MEDIATION REQUESTED
79. Plaintiff petitions this honorable court that in response to a blanket, general denial by all
Defendants, and upon the denial of Plaintiff’s pleading for SUMMARY JUDGMENT, Plaintiff
then stands on his pleadings and respectfully moves secondly for Mediation Order, and if matters
are unresolved in the time set by this Court, Plaintiff then moves for a trial date setting for Trial
by Jury as soon as possible due to the continual financial, business, emotional, mental and credit
damages that are increasing daily against Plaintiff who has two special needs children to support.

                                          XXV.
                                PROOF OF WHO SHOULD WIN
80.   Either Plaintiff is wrong and the Defendants are right OR Plaintiff is right and the
Defendants are wrong. One or the other must be true. In Civil Court, the difference between
51% and 49% for the level that has to be proven, for one side to win over the other, is a very
slim margin indeed.

81. This case deals with four categories, “Law, Caselaw, Facts and Evidence”. Plaintiff is
tendering at least 58 pages of Laws, 20 cites from Caselaws, hundreds of Facts, and at least 153
pages of Evidence into this original Complaint. Further, in Plaintiff’s “corner” is a Sworn
Affidavit, signed under the penalties of perjury, that supports Plaintiff’s claims of those Laws,
Caselaws, Facts and Evidence, that are cited, quoted, referred to and relied upon as being 100%
true, such that Plaintiff should prevail in all things. But IF Plaintiff is wrong about the Laws,
Caselaws, Facts and Evidence cited in this suit, the Defendants should have no problem in
verifying their Laws, Caselaws, Facts and Evidence by the further submission of a Sworn
Affidavit, signed under penalties of perjury as Plaintiff has done.                     Why does that matter?

82. Plaintiff relies upon the un-overturned Texas case of Morris v National Cash Register, 44
S.W. 2d 433, which clearly states at point #4 that “ uncontested allegations in affidavit must be
accepted as true.” and the Federal case of Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327 which states,


                            Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                    Page 23 of 36
“Allegations in affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-
affidavit”. If Defendants fail or refuse to tender Sworn Affidavits, signed under the penalties of
perjury, that their Law, Caselaw, Facts and Evidence controverts and overcomes Plaintiff’s Law,
Caselaw, Facts and Evidence, then the Defendants lose as a matter of Summary Judgment.

                                          XXVI.
                                SETTLEMENT SCHEDULE NOTICE
83. As a means to eliminate the need for the Defendants to waste time and money on mediation
or argue “vagueness”, Plaintiff herein tenders his Settlement Schedule Notice, and by disclosing
this in advance, Defendants will have no legitimate excuse to claim that they were not aware of
or were unclear on how to keep the damages settlement to the absolute minimum. The absolute
minimum that Plaintiff will settle for beginning one day AFTER the date of initial proper
service of this suit to the Defendants, is $750,000.00.

84. Anticipating that this suit may not go to trial for one full year, Plaintiff will settle for NO
LESS THAN $3,000,000.00 on the day prior to trial, which is Plaintiff’s cut off date for
settlement. The difference between these two figures leaves $2,250,000.00. Assuming that a
trial will be scheduled one year out and dividing that amount between 365 days yields an amount
of $6,164.38.

85. Therefore, on day two after the date of receipt of service of this suit, Plaintiff will accept no
less than $756,164.38. On day three after the date of receipt of service of this suit, Plaintiff will
accept no less than $762,328.76. Each day thereafter increases by $6,164.38 until the one day
before trial, on which the minimum settlement amount would be $3,000,000.00.

86. Settlement will be effectuated by the electronic funds transfer of the settlement amount,
determined by the date of transfer initiation, into the Escrow Account and location Plaintiff
designates.

87. On the beginning date of trial, there will be no settlement amount. The full $9,530,200.00
will be sought at that time.




                               Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                       Page 24 of 36
88. Respondent hereby objects to any and all deviation, divergence, sharp practices, or variation
of or from the Texas Rules of Civil Procedures, Texas Rules of Criminal Procedures, Texas
Rules of Evidence, Texas Penal Code, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures, all statutory law,
Texas Constitution, United States Constitution, or doctrines established by stare decisis or other
standards of review in any proceedings before this court or on appeal from this court in the cause
styled above. The only accepted deviation or waiver of rights will be in writing in accordance
with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 11 and signed by all parties or their
representatives or attorneys.

89. Plaintiff reserves his right to amend this suit at any time before trial, according to the
guidelines of T.R.C.P., and hereby claims and reserves all other rights, both enumerated and un-
enumerated, waiving none in any degree or manner at any time.

                                          Respectfully Submitted by:


                                          ____________________________________
                                          Ben Richard Drum, Plaintiff, Propria Persona
                                          7214 Woodsprings Drive,
                                          Garland, Dallas County
                                          Texas, U.S.A [75044],
                                          214-680-8328




                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 25 of 36
                           EXHIBIT LIST:
     [underlined exhibits are self authenticating, T.R.Ev. 902(5)]
EXHIBIT 1 is a copy of Plaintiff’s TORA for Defendant Calhoun’s Oaths and Bonds, dated
Nov 29, 2005 (Bates stamp Number 00001)
EXHIBIT 2 is:
      (2-1) a copy of the PIA Response from Jennifer McClure, Assistant District Attorney,
              (Bates stamp Number 00002), covering the requested material in Exhibit 1 above,
      (2-2) a copy of the Oath of Office of Defendant Calhoun dated Jan 01, 2003
              (Bates stamp 00003),
      (2-3) a copy of the Statement of Office of Defendant Calhoun, dated Jan 01, 2003
              (Bates stamp 00004)
      (2-4) a copy of the Bond of Unitrin covering Defendant Calhoun 2-4
              (Bates stamp 00005),
      (2-5 and 2-6) a copy of the Bond of American States of Defendant Calhoun 2-5 and 2-6
             (Bates stamp 00006 and 00007),
      (2-7 and 2-8) a copy of Unitrin’s Power of Attorney 2-7 and 2-8
             (Bates stamp 00008 and 00009), and
      (2-9) a copy of American States Power of Attorney 2-9 (Bates stamp 00010).
EXHIBIT 3 is a copy of the Texas Government Code Chapter 604 Section 006 which declares
that the bond inures to the person aggrieved. (Bates stamp 00011).
EXHIBIT 4 is a copy of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 12 Section 004,
Venue (Bates stamp 00012)
EXHIBIT 5 contains, in order:
      a copy of Plaintiff’s claim on Defendant Calhoun’s bond covered by Unitrin dated
             December 29, 2005 (Bates stamp 00013 and 00014),
      a copy of Plaintiff’s claim on Defendant Calhoun’s bond covered by American States
             dated December 29, 2005 (Bates stamp 00015 and 00016),
      a copy of the Exhibit List that was sent with those two claims to each Insurance Co.
             (Bates stamp 00017 and 00018),
      a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service of said claim to American States claims
             agent Barbara Rodgers on Dec 30, 2005 (Bates stamp 00019)
      a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service of said claim to Unitrin claims agent
             Debbie Lambeth on January 03, 2006 (Bates stamp 00020)



                         Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                 Page 26 of 36
(5A1) a copy of the first non-judgment Notice of Lien Serial Number 750072863, filed
       against Plaintiff in Dallas County Records on Jan 11 2001. (Bates stamp 00021)
(5A2) a copy of the second non-judgment Notice of Lien Serial Number 750325437
       filed against Plaintiff in Dallas County Records on Jun 21 2001
       (Bates stamp 00022)
(5A3) a copy of the third non-judgment Notice of Lien Serial Number 750326778 filed
       against Plaintiff in Dallas County Records on May 05 2003. (Bates stamp 00023)
(5A4) a copy of the fourth non-judgment Notice of Lien Serial Number 177451004 filed
       against Plaintiff in Dallas County Records on Jul 08, 2004. (Bates stamp 00024)
(5A5) a copy of the fifth non-judgment Notice of Lien Serial Number 236049805, filed
       against Plaintiff in Dallas County Records on Jul 18 2005. (Bates stamp 00025)
(5B) a copy of the True Bill of Indictment against Tanenankhana Bernard Andrews
        for filing false claims against Cynthia Calhoun, in case no. F-0500862-GJR
        (Bates stamp 00026)
(5C1 and 5C2) a copy of Plaintiff’s FOIA Response dated Jan 29, 2003 from the
       Department of the Treasury affirming that there are no Assessments against
       Plaintiff. (Bates stamp 00027 and 00028)
(5C3) a copy of Plaintiff’s FOIA Response dated Feb 14, 2003 from the Department of
       the Treasury affirming that there are no Assessments against Plaintiff.
       (Bates stamp 00029)
(5C4) a copy of Plaintiff’s FOIA Response dated Jun 24, 2003 from the Department of
       the Treasury affirming that there are no Assessments against Plaintiff.
       (Bates stamp 00030)
(5C5) a copy of Plaintiff’s FOIA Response dated Oct 14, 2004 from the Department of
       the Treasury affirming that there are no Assessments against Plaintiff.
       (Bates stamp 00031)
(5D) a copy of Plaintiff’s FOIA Response dated Nov 30, 2005 from the Department of
       the Treasury affirming that there are no Assessments against Plaintiff.
       (Bates stamp 00032)
(5E1 thru 5E6) a copy of Plaintiff’s Proof of no Judgments (and thus no lawful liens)
       in a Certificate of Search from the Federal District Clerk Karen Mitchell dated
       September 27, 2004. (Bates stamp 00033 thru 00038)
(5F1) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 11 Section .001 (Bates stamp 00039)
(5F2) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 11 Section .003 (Bates stamp 00040)
(5F3) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 11 Section .004 (Bates stamp 00041)
(5F4) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 11 Section .005 (Bates stamp 00042)


                  Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                          Page 27 of 36
(5F5) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 11 Section .008 (Bates stamp 00043)
(5G1) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 12 Section 001 (Bates stamp 00044)
(5G2) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 12 Section .013 (Bates stamp 00045)
(5H1) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 14 Section .001 (Bates stamp 00046)
(5H2) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 14 Section .002 (Bates stamp 00047)
(5H3) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 14 Section .003 (Bates stamp 00048)
(5H4 and 5H5) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 14 Section .004
      (Bates stamp 00049 and 00050)
(5I1) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 52 Section 001. (Bates stamp 00051)
(5I2) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 52 Section .0011 (Bates stamp 00052)
(5I3) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 52 Section .002 (Bates stamp 00053)
(5I4) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 52 Section .003 (Bates stamp 00054)
(5I5) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 52 Section .004 (Bates stamp 00055)
(5I6) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 52 Section .0041 (Bates stamp 00056)
(5I7) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 52 Section .005 (Bates stamp 00057)
(5I8) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 52 Section .006 (Bates stamp 00058)
(5J) a copy of the United States Attorney Manual, Section 3-10.200
        (Bates stamp 00059)
(5K) a copy of the United States Attorney Manual, Section 3-10.520 which provides
       the EXCLUSIVE method of collecting a Federal Debt to be the FDCP below.
       (Bates stamp 00060)
(5L) a copy of the Internal Revenue Service’s Revenue Ruling 71-466
        (Bates stamp 00061)
(5M1 and 5M2) a copy of the Internal Revenue Service Explanation of what a
      Revenue Ruling is (Bates stamp 00062 and 00063)
(5N) a copy of the Internal Revenue Service Articles on Small Businesses regarding the
       list of due process requirements that must be met before filing a Notice of Federal
       Tax Lien (Bates stamp 00064)
(5O1) a copy of 28 USC Part VI Chapter 176 entitled Federal Debt Collection
       Procedure, showing the division of Chapter 176 into four parts, A, B, C and D.
       (Bates stamp 00065)




                   Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                           Page 28 of 36
(5O2) a copy of 28USC Part VI, Chapter 176 Subchapter B showing 3101 to 3105 to be
       the Pre-Judgment remedies allowed by the Federal Debt Collection Procedure.
       (Bates stamp 00066)
(5O3 thru 5O7) a copy of 28 USC 3101 Pre-Judgment remedies required by USAM
       3-10.520 (Exhibit 5K) above, (Bates stamp 00067 to 00071)
(5O8) a copy of 28 USC Part VI Chapter 176 Subchapter C Post Judgment remedies
       showing 28USC 3201 thru 3206 are the Post Judgment remedies allowed by the
       Federal Debt Collection Procedure. (Bates stamp 00072)
(5P) a copy of the pertinent part of Public Law 105-206 Subtitle H passed July 22, 1998
        known as the Internal Revenue Service Restructuring and Reform Act of 1998
        codified into 26 USC 3704 (Bates stamp 00073)
(5Q) a copy of the Internal Revenue Service, Internal Revenue Manual Part 5,
       Collection Process, Chapter 12 Federal Tax Liens, Section 2 Lien Filing
       Requirements at 5.12.2.2 showing Creation and Duration at 5.12.2.2.1.A.
       (Bates stamp 00074)
(5R1 thru 5R7) a copy of the Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter 98-016, dated
       March 13, 1998, (Bates stamp 00075 thru 00081)
(5S1) a copy of 26 USC 6321, Lien for Taxes (Bates stamp 00082)
(5S2) a copy of 26 USC 6322, Period of Lien (Bates stamp 00083)
(5S3) a copy of 26 USC 6323, Validity and Priority [of Liens]
       (Bates stamp 00084 thru 00093)
(5T) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 13 Section 001 Validity of Unrecorded
        Instrument (Bates stamp 00094)
(5U) a copy of 28 USC 3301(7) Federal definition of “Valid Lien”, (Bates stamp 00095)
(5V) a copy of Plaintiff’s Sworn Affidavit supporting his claims against Defendant
       Calhoun’s Bonds, dated Dec 28, 2005, (Bates stamp 00096)
(5W1 thru 5W3) a copy of Plaintiff’s 3rd Notice and Demand to Defendant Calhoun that
      was mailed to the two Defendant Insurance Companies (American States and
      Unitrin) to prove to them that Defendant Calhoun had been duly served with
      notice of the fraud in the Liens filed against him. (Bates stamp 00097 thru 00099)
(5W4) a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service of Plaintiff’s 3rd Notice to Calhoun,
      accepted on July 16, 2004 (Bates stamp 00100)
(5W5) a copy of the stamp page evidencing that Exhibit 5W1 thru 5W4 was filed into
      Dallas County Public Records on Jul 23 2004 (Bates stamp 00101)
(5X) a copy of the response letter from American States Insurance Co., dated January 06,
       2006, from Barbara Rodgers (Bates stamp 00102)


                   Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                           Page 29 of 36
      (5Y) a copy of the response letter from Unitrin, dated January 20, 2006, from Harley
             Daniel, assigning claim number 1291099300 to Plaintiff’s claim on Defendant
             Calhoun’s Bond (Bates stamp 00103)
EXHIBIT 6 is a copy of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 12 Section 003
Cause of Action (Bates stamp 00104)
EXHIBIT 7 is a copy of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 41 Section 003
Standards for Recovery of Exemplary Damages (Bates stamp 00105)
EXHIBIT 8 contains, in order:
      (8-1) a copy of Plaintiff’s Sworn Affidavit of Criminal Complaint against Defendant
              Calhoun accusing her of committing the Penal Code Offense of Official
               Oppression on Aug 25, 2006 (Bates stamp 00106)
      (8-2) a copy of Plaintiff’s Sworn Affidavit of Criminal Complaint against Defendant
              Calhoun accusing her of committing the Penal Code Offense of Abuse of Official
              Capacity on Aug 25, 2006 (Bates stamp 00107)
      (8-3 and 8-4) a copy of Texas Government Code Chapter 51 Section 901
             (Bates stamp 00108 and 00109)
      (8-5) a copy of Texas Penal Code 39.02 Abuse of Official Capacity and 39.03 Official
              Oppression (Bates stamp 00110)
      (8-6) a copy of Defendant Calhoun’s Oath of Office dated Jan 01 2003
              (Bates stamp 00111)
      (8-7) a copy of Defendant Calhoun’s Statement of Officer dated Jan 01, 2003
              (Bates stamp 00112)
      (8-8) a copy of Texas Property Code Chapter 51 Section 008 Certain Liens on Real
              Property (Bates stamp 00113)
      (8-9 thru 8-11) a copy of the Texas Constitution, Article 1 Section 19 and 29, Article 15
              Section 7, Texas Property Code 11.001, 11.004, 12.001, 14.001, 52.001,
              52.0011, 52.002, 52.003, 52.004, 52.0041, 41.008
              (Bates stamp 00114 thru 00116)
EXHIBIT 9 contains, in order:
      (9-1 thru 9-9) a copy of Plaintiff’s Original Petition for Quo Warranto filed against
              Defendant Calhoun in the Dallas County Civil District Court 191st, filed on Jan
              31, 2006 (Bates stamp 00117 thru 00125)
      (9-10) a copy of the Certificate of Service for the Petition for Quo Warranto filed
              against Defendant Calhoun (Bates stamp 00126)
      (9-11 and 9-12) a copy of Plaintiff’s two-page Affidavit supporting the Quo Warranto
             (Bates stamp 00127 and 00128)


                         Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                 Page 30 of 36
      (9-13 thru 9-15) a copy of the Laws and Exhibits list that was attached to and made a
              part of the Petition for Quo Warranto filed on Jan 31, 2006 in the 191st Dist. Court
              (Bates stamp 00129 thru 00131)
      (9-16) a copy of the blank ORDER for Temporary Suspension of Defendant Calhoun
              during the Quo Warranto Proceedings (Bates stamp 00132)
      (9-17) a copy of the blank ORDER for INFORMATION to be filed against Defendant
              Calhoun (Bates stamp 00133)
      (9-18) a copy of the blank ORDER of JUDGMENT against Defendant Calhoun in the
              Petition for Quo Warranto (Bates stamp (inadvertently) also 00133)
EXHIBIT 10 is a copy of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 82 Section 001 and 003
(Bates stamp 00134)
EXHIBIT 11 is a copy of Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code Chapter 12 Section 002
(Bates stamp 00135)
EXHIBIT 12 contains, in order:
      (12-1 thru 12-3) a copy of Plaintiff’s three-page Second Notice of Claim on Defendant
             Calhoun’s Bond sent to Unitrin on Jan 18, 2006, (Bates stamp 00136 thru 00138)
      (12-4) a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service of the Second Notice to Unitrin
              showing Delivery Date of Jan 20, 2006 (Bates stamp 00139)
      (12-5 thru 12-7) a copy of Plaintiff’s three-page Second Notice of Claim on Defendant
              Calhoun’s Bond sent to American States on Jan 18, 2006,
              (Bates stamp 00140 thru 00142)
      (12-8) a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service of the Second Notice to American
              States showing Delivery Date of Jan 20, 2006 (Bates stamp 00143)
EXHIBIT 13 contains, in order:
      (13-1 thru 13-3) a copy of Plaintiff’s three-page Third Notice of Claim on Defendant
             Calhoun’s Bond sent to Unitrin on Feb 15, 2006, (Bates stamp 00144 thru 00146)
      (13-4) a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service of the Third Notice to Unitrin
              showing Delivery Date of Feb 17, 2006 (Bates stamp 00147)
      (13-5 thru 13-7) a copy of Plaintiff’s three-page Third Notice of Claim on Defendant
              Calhoun’s Bond sent to American States on Feb 15, 2006,
              (Bates stamp 00148 thru 00150)
      (13-8) a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service of the Third Notice to American
              States showing Delivery Date of Jan 20, 2006 (Bates stamp 00151)
      (13-9 and 13-10) a copy of Plaintiff’s 1st Notice to Defendant Calhoun dated received
             Jan 21 2004 (Bates stamp 00152 and 00153)


                         Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                 Page 31 of 36
      (13-11 thru 13-13) a copy of Plaintiff’s 2nd Notice to Defendant Calhoun, dated Mar
             29, 2004, (Bates stamp 00154 thru 00156)
      (13-14) a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service dated delivered March 31, 2004
             (Bates stamp 00157)
      (13-15 thru 13-17) a copy of Plaintiff’s Third Notice to Defendant Calhoun, dated Jul
             16, 2004, showing filed into Dallas County Public Records on Jul 23 2004
             (Bates stamp 00158 thru 00160)
      (13-18) a copy of Plaintiff’s USPS Proof of Service that the Third Notice was received
             on Jul 20, 2004 (Bates stamp 00161)
      (13-19) a copy of the stamp page of Exhibit 13-15 through 13-18 being filed into
             Dallas County Public Records (Bates stamp 00162)
      (13-20) a copy of (13-15) that shows that the 3rd Notice to Defendant Calhoun was
             received in the Dallas County District Attorney’s Office on Sep 22, 2004,
             containing the word “NO” in the upper right hand corner. (Bates stamp 00163)
      (13-21 and 13-22) a copy of American States Insurance Company’s letter, dated Feb
             22, 2006 from Barbara Rodgers to Plaintiff, denying Plaintiff’s claim on
             Defendant Calhoun’s Bond, (Bate stamp 00164 and 00165)
EXHIBIT 14 contains, in order:
      (14-1) a copy of Plaintiff’s PRESENTATION OF CLAIM to the Dallas County
              Commissioner’s Court, presented by hand delivery on Jan 06, 2006.
              (Bates stamp 00166)
      (14-2) a copy of Texas Local Government Code Chapter 89 Section 004 and 0041
              (Bates stamp 00167)
EXHIBIT 15-1 thru 15-3 is a copy of the State of Texas Attorney General Opinion Letter
JM-224, dated Nov 02, 1984 (Bates stamp 00168 thru 00170)
EXHIBIT 16-1 thru 16-5 is a copy of the DIGEST of Texas House Bill 1185 (75th Leg. 1997)
that legislated the requirement for fraudulent liens to be removed. (Bates stamp 00171 thru
00175)
EXHIBIT 17 contains, in order:
      (17-1 and 17-2) a copy of the two-page ORDER signed on Nov 07, 2006, based upon
             Plaintiff’s Texas Government Code 51.901 Action Plaintiff filed in the 192nd
             Judicial Court of Dallas County, ORDERING the REMOVAL of ALL FIVE
             LIENS (Bates stamp 00176 and 00177)
      (17-3) a copy of the Jim Hamlin Clerk filing date stamp page (Bates stamp 00178)
      (17-4 thru 17-8) a copy of the FIVE LIENS that were ordered to be removed by Court
             Order (Bates stamp 00179 thru 00183)


                         Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                 Page 32 of 36
      (17-9) a copy of the File Date Stamp Mark page showing when the documents in
              Exhibit 17-1 through 17-8 were filed in the Dallas County Records Index, on Nov
              08, 2006 (Bates stamp 00184)
EXHIBIT 18 contains, in order:
      (18-1 and 18-2) a copy of Plaintiff’s two-page Sworn Affidavit of Criminal Complaint
             against Pat Batchelor Dallas County District Attorney accusing him committing
             the criminal acts of Tampering with a Government Record, Impersonating a
             Judge, Abuse of Official Capacity and Official Oppression, (Bates stamp 00185
             and 00186)
      (18-3) a copy of the letter from Pat Batchelor in which he confesses that he made the
              decision to dismiss the Complaints against the fraudulent filers
              (Bates stamp 00187)
      (18-4 and 18-5) a copy of Plaintiff’s two-page Cover Letter regarding the Criminal
             Complaint Affidavit to the Dallas County District Attorney Bill Hill, dated
             Dec 20, 2004, (Bates stamp 00188 and 00189)
      (18-6 thru 18-27) a copy of Plaintiff’s twenty two-page Original Sworn Criminal
              Complaint Affidavit against the fraudulent filers, filed on Dec 20, 2004 into the
              Dallas County District Attorney’s Office, that Pat Batchelor took upon his own
              self to refuse to attest and forward to the (Bates stamp 00190 thru 00211)
EXHIBIT 19 contains, in order:
      (19-1 and 19-2) a copy of the Plaintiff’s two-page sworn Criminal Complaint against
             Karen Tabary dated Aug, 25, 2006, that was filed with the City of Garland Police
             Department on Sep 07, 2006 (Bates stamp 00212 and 00213)
      (19-3) a copy of the Texas Penal Code 39.02 Abuse of Official Capacity and 39.03
              Official Oppression, (Bates stamp 00214)
      (19-4 and 19-5) a copy of the letter from Karen Tabary, Dallas County Assistant
             District Attorney wherein she claimed to have removed Plaintiff’s Texas Property
             Code compliant filings and she claimed that the Dallas County Clerk is in
             obedience to State laws when she files federal tax liens in the unsupported state
             that they are received, and she claimed that she sent courtesy copies of her letter
             to five other agencies, two Federal, two state and one Dallas County dated Sep 13,
             2004, and her exhibit list page (Bates stamp 00215 and 00216)
      (19-6 thru 19-13) a copy of pages 1, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the court reported
              transcript of the case 04-12651-J Plaintiff Ben Drum v Defendant Calhoun,
              where Karen Tabary stated to the Court that she has not removed Plaintiff’s
              affidavits that she claimed to have removed in her letter (19-4), date of that
              hearing was Mar 29, 2005, (Bates stamp 00217 thru 00224).




                         Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                 Page 33 of 36
                                  CASELAWS CITED
                                   (in order of first appearance)


Page 2, Paragraph 5.         City of San Juan v Gonzalez, 22 SW3 69

Page 3, Paragraph 9.         Hivick v Hemme, 118 Okl. 167; 247 P. 692, 693

Page 7, Paragraph 23,        Chaplin v State (1879) 7 Cr. R. 87
                             Thompson v State (1888) 26 Cr. R. 94, 9 S.W. 486
                             Hughes v State (1912) 67 Cr. R. 333, 149 S.W. 173
                             Collmorgen v State (1914) 74 Cr. R. 304, 168 S.W. 519
                             Smith v State (1925) 99 Cr. R. 114, 286 S.W. 742
                             Gray v State ex rel. Brown (Civ.App.1966) 406 S.W. 2d 934
                             Crain v State (1913) 69 Cr. R. 55, 153 S.W. 155
                             Taff v State (1913) 69 Cr. R. 528, 155 S.W. 214
                             Wilson v State (App. 5 Dist 1992) 825 S.W.2d 155

Page 8, Paragraph 27,        Jaimes v Fiesta Mart, 21 SW3d 301

Page 10, Paragraph 29,       Alamo Workforce Development v Vann, 21 SW3 428

Page 11, Paragraph 34,       Nguyen v State, 21 SW3 609, 610

Page 16, Paragraph 53,       Stowers Furniture Co. v American Indem. Co. 15 SW2 544
                             (Tex. Comm. App. 1929)

Page 16, Paragraph 54,       Globe Indem. Co. v Gen-Aero. Inc., 459 SW2d 205

Page 16, Paragraph 55,       State Farm Lloyd’s Ins. Co. v Maldonado, 963 SW 2d 38, 41,
(Tex. 1998)

Page 19, Paragraph 69,       Foust v Estate of Walters, 21 SW3 495, 499

Pages 23, 24, Paragraph 82   Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433,

                             Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327




                         Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                 Page 34 of 36
State of Texas                                      )
County of Dallas                                    ) ss: Know all men by these presents:

                               SWORN AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS

1. I affirm that I, Ben Richard Drum, the undersigned Affiant did personally appear
before the Notary Public in Dallas County, State of Texas, and after being duly sworn to on
my oath; State, Declare and Depose all of the following:

2. I affirm that I am Ben Drum and that I am the Plaintiff in the foregoing Civil
Complaint, and that I am over the age of eighteen (18) years of age.

3. I am of sound mind and memory, and am capable of making this affidavit.

4. I have personal knowledge of all of the statements in this Affidavit and in the foregoing
Civil Complaint, and I do hereby certify and verify that all of the statements in this
affidavit and in that Civil Complaint are true and correct to the best of my knowledge,
ability and understanding and that it is sworn to and signed under the penalties of perjury
of these united states of America.

5. I affirm that I am making the foregoing Civil Complaint for remedy, relief, restitution
and exemplary damages because the Defendants have been given notice, time and
opportunity to resolve this matter out of court, and they have refused to do so, and further,
that the law, caselaw, facts and evidence show that this Civil Complaint should be heard by
a lawfully empanelled Dallas County Jury, and ruled in Plaintiff’s favor in all things.




                 FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

        By: ______________________________________
                 Ben Richard Drum, Affiant, Propria Persona




       SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME,
       On this the _______ day of ___________________________, 2006.


                       By:_________________________________
                                          Notary Public
                                                                                       Seal


                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 35 of 36
                       CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE OF CITATION

Citation of service is being perfected by and through the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies
Code 12.005(b)(2) which allows for proper service to be perfected through Certified mail, and
therefore:

         Defendant Cynthia Figueroa Calhoun, Dallas County Clerk at 509 Main Street, Dallas,
Texas, 75202 is being served with a true, complete copy of this Lawsuit, the Citation, the Exhibit
list, the Exhibits, the Sworn Affidavit, the Request for Production of Documents, Request for
Admissions and Request for Interrogatories, by Registered Mail Number RR 998 762 304

        Defendant AMERICAN STATES INSURANCY COMPANY SAFECO SURETY at
1600 N. Collins Blvd. Richardson, Texas 75080-3519, is being served with a true, complete copy
of this Lawsuit, the Citation, the Exhibit list, the Exhibits, the Sworn Affidavit, the Request for
Production of Documents, Request for Admissions and Request for Interrogatories, by
Registered Mail Number RR 998 762 318

         Defendant UNITRIN BUSINESS INSURANCE at 10000 N. Central Expressway, Dallas,
Texas 75231 is being served with a true, complete copy of this Lawsuit, the Citation, the Exhibit
list, the Exhibits, the Sworn Affidavit, the Request for Production of Documents, Request for
Admissions and Request for Interrogatories, by Registered Mail Number RR 998 762 321



                      By:___________________________________




                           Plaintiff’s Original Civil Complaint for Monetary Damages
                                                   Page 36 of 36

				
pptfiles pptfiles
About