Friday, April 13, 2018



TEXAS SUPREME ACTS AS SUSPECTED ONCE THEY WERE GIVEN THE ISSUE ON PETITION FOR REVIEW

As noted yesterday Montoya failed to mention the Mandamus pending for months.  Because Montoya certainly has no knowledge of the law, and Hernandez by his own words in an email to Duardo made clear when he wants something nothing will stop him and Frank Hill long in the tooth with not enough knowledge of the law to understand how the Texas Supreme Court, missed this key variable.

The mandamus was denied this morning as expected.  The mandamus issue was the trial court moving forward with a trial while the case was on appeal.  The law is clear a mandamus will issue in a jurisdiction case, and two the trial judge had no jurisdiction.  But the trial date passed, and in the eyes of the Texas Supreme Court because she never reset it the matter became moot.  It is not because her coordinator said she will reset it.  But technically there is no setting.

This denial gives me more evidence in the federal court on the issue of futility.  It is happening.

If the Court takes a mandamus they can rule on ancillary issues.  In this case it would have been the crux of  the case.  Since they chose not to stop the trial judge from trying the case, they had no authority to rule the ancillary issues.

But they knew the ancillary issues were around the corner in the form of a Petition for Review.  According the USP Office it is out for delivery to the Court.

The denying of the mandamus once they knew the Petition for Review was being filed was 100% predictable.  The Petition for Review is the cleaner way to deal with this.

NOW THE RULES

Believe it or not the Texas Supreme Court has a list of the type cases they will take.  One is conflicting rulings by the appellate courts, and another a question which impacts the entire state on which they have yet to rule.

They have yet to rule on this question.  Why didn't Mike have Montoya explain this.  It is certainly in the brief Mike had.

The Cuba v. Plyant case says regardless of whether a hearing was set the appellate court should rule on the Merits of the Motion to Dismiss.  This is the opposite of the ruling in my case.

BUT THE INCREDIBLY BIZARRE PART IS JUSTICE GABRIEL ISSUED TWO OPINIONS WITH CONFLICTING LEGAL CONCLUSIONS.  THE FIRST WHICH IS IN MY FAVOR WAS ISSUED WHILE MY APPEAL WAS PENDING

.  See, Redflex Traffic Systems, Inc, v. Watson, No 02-16-00432-CV.  *13,  (Tex. App. – Fort Worth Oct. 5, 2017, no pet h.)  What is so remarkable is the same Justice, Justice Gabriel who dismissed Movant’s case based on no hearing haven been set, made the same finding in Redlex, but then went on to say the court could rule on the Motion to Dismiss.  Why the different results by the same justice?  Futility – and no federal judge will put up with such blatant biased conduct. 

Justice Gabriel in the Redflex case.

"concluding that TCPA motion to dismiss was not overruled by operation of law where trial court held no hearing on the motion). In any event, we need not address it in this case because even if we were to conclude that Redflex's TCPA motion to dismiss in the federal proceeding was not overruled by operation of law, Redflex would, nevertheless, not prevail in this appeal because, as we conclude below, the state district court could have properly denied Redflex's post-remand TCPA motion to dismiss."

In Redflix Justice Gabriel went out of his way to say they did not have to address the no hearing issue and then ruled on the Merits of the Motion to Dismiss.  If no hearing in the trial court means they have no jurisdiction to rule on the merits of my Motion to Dismiss, why then did they have jurisdiction in the Redflex case?

Justice Gabriel has no idea what he is about to get hit with.  This is only further evidence of futility, for which the federal court will have jurisdiction. 

The federal lawsuit is moving forward while the Petition for Review is pending.  

You see because of my work against the judiciary a decision has been made to deny me redress in Texas State Courts.  I do a lot of work around the state.  The Texas Supreme Court is tired of it and want to shut me down without ever having to deal with law or evidence.  

I know Mike, I can win, and after the sanctions hearing he will appeal that thereby delaying matters longer.  Mike has unlimited funds to insure the harassment never ends.

His lawyer will never say no to Mike's actions so long as Mike pays him.

There is a lot going on behind the scenes.  I fully expect to be fighting Mike for another 10 years.  We are going to fight until one of us dies.  Mike is out over $50,000, and that number will keep on going up.  My only costs are costs for filing.

You see unlike Mike I do not need a whore lawyer to fight my battles, I can fight my own.

See you at the races Mike.  This is about to get real serious.



No comments: