Judge Skipper Koetter: You violated Canons 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & Bribery Statute!

Judge Skipper Koetter: You violated Canons 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & Bribery Statute

Is that for our lunch, counselor?

For dinner or campaign contribution it’s not enough!

Take a look at the list of my contributors and follow suit if you expect me to rule in favor of your clients in the future!

—————————————————————————————————————–

$20 bills? Not good enough for a feast, counselor!

—————————————————————————————————————–

All right! How about these $100 bills, your honor? 

That’s the best we can do because we are a small law firm!

*******************************************************************************************

I can be jailed again at any time, it is very easy. They can say I am a criminal and just lock me up. Chen Guangcheng   To my good luck, I am not in China! But if I should go to court, and say: I accuse Judge Skipper Koetter of Abuse/Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason & RICO. Complete Silence? as I posted on July 26, 2014, he would not hesitate to hold me in contempt of court and jail me for six months or more. That’s why I only appear at court by well-pled legal papers now and argue online based on sufficient facts and applicable law. They have to argue with me on paper, but they are unmeritorious in every respect. Consequently, people like Koetter, Roberts, and Hill have remained silent despite my repeated attacks and challenges to a duel in court! Please take a look at Dr. Linda Sheldon’s suffering from injustice by clicking the following links: Blog: Experience as a defendant in Corrupt Illinois Courts …; Illinois Corruption: Torture of Dr Linda Shelton in Illinois prison. She has been arrested 25 times beginning in 2002 for her whistle blowing activities. She has represented herself and won the first 15 cases. She has been charged with both felonies and misdemeanors. Thanks to Calhoun County for giving me the unforgettable and unforgivable 34-day jail experience, I am capable of empathizing with Dr. Sheldon’s mistreatment! I suppose my demand for $75 million damages payable by installment in 75 years to a charity of my choice is not unreasonable! That’s the price of abuse and misuse of power!

*******************************************************************************************

TEXAS CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

Judge Koetter Violated Canons 1, 2, 3, 4, and 6.

Canon 1: Upholding the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary

1. An independent and honorable judiciary is indispensable to justice in our society. A judge should participate in establishing, maintaining and enforcing high standards of conduct, and should personally observe those standards so that the integrity and independence of the judiciary is preserved. The provisions of this Code are to be construed and applied to further that objective.
2. In light of all the VOID Orders/Judgments rendered without standing & jurisdiction, the Integrity and Independence of the Judiciary cannot have been upheld.

Canon 2: Avoiding Impropriety and the Appearance of Impropriety In All of the Judge’s Activities

1. Judge Koetter has not complied with the law, and has not acted in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary, e.g., 1) CJC NO. 12-0849-DI PUBLIC ADMONITION signed by Tom Cunningham, Chair, State Commission on Judicial Conduct dated 9/17/2013. ((1) Concluding that Judge Koetter’s conduct constituted a willful or persistent violation of Canon 3B(8) of the Texas Code of Judicial Conduct.); 2) Engaged in improper ex parte (one-sided) communications; 3) Prohibited defense to put on a defense to Plaintiff’s claim for damages; 4) Improperly awarded $45,000 in fees to attorney; 5) Denied defendant due process rights.) See “Judge Juergen Koetter Jr. of Victoria, TX; repeat offender” by The Committee to Expose Dishonest and Incompetent Judges.

 

2. Furthermore, Judge Koetter violated the following, among others:

1) Open Courts Doctrine of ART. 1 SEC. 13 OF THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION: “All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law.” Selectively closed the court door to Chen.

2) Art 5 – Sec 1-a (6) A of THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION: Retirement, Censure, or Removal by State Commission On Judicial Conduct Warranted.

3) THE 1st AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION: The right to access the courts for redress of grievances.

4) THE 14^TH AMENDMENT TO THE US CONSTITUTION Due Process & Equal Protection.

5) SECTION 1983 ACTIONS AGAINST DEPRIVATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF STATE LAW.

6) Rules 18(b)(1) Recusal and Disqualification: Conflict of Interest & 145, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure: Interference with the Clerk’s mandatory duty to serve process in favor of Plaintiffs by denying Chen access to the court to be heard fairly and justly.

7) Rendition of more than 6 VOID Orders/Judgments and refusal to have them reversed despite Plaintiffs’ lack of standing and the Court’s lack of jurisdiction.       

Canon 3: Performing the Duties of Judicial Office Impartially and Diligently 

• A. Judicial Duties in General.                     
• The judicial duties of a judge take precedence over all the judge’s other activities. Judicial duties include all the duties of the judge’s office prescribed by law. In the performance of these duties, the following standards apply:

B. Adjudicative Responsibilities.

1. A judge shall hear and decide matters assigned to the judge except those in which disqualification is required or recusal is appropriate. In this case, Judge Koetter’s disqualification or recusal was required in that he was named as one of the Defendants in Chen’s AMENDED PAUL CHEN’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, TRESPASS TO TRY TITLE, 42 USC § 1985, CIVIL CONSPIRACY & RICO CLAIMS filed on May 10, 2013 & posted on May 13, 2013 and AMENDED Cover Letter + PETITION FOR SECTION 1983 AND STATE LAW CLAIMS filed on June 4, 2012, but he improperly labeled Chen a vexatious litigant filing frivolous lawsuits and had Judge Kemper Stephen Williams, another named Defendant, block the Clerk from performing her RULE 145 T.R.C.P.’s mandatory duty of service of process based on the 11/30/2010 VOID Summary Judgment, depriving Chen of access to the courts for redress of grievances under the 1^st Amendment, the due process and equal protection clause of the 14^th Amendment to the US Constitution, and the Open Courts Doctrine of Texas Constitution.
2. Judge Koetter has never been faithful to the law and has never maintained professional competence in it.

Canon 4: Conducting the Judge’s Extra-Judicial Activities to Minimize         

                 the Risk of Conflict with Judicial Obligations 

C. Financial Activities.

1. (4) Neither a judge nor a family member residing in the judge’s household shall accept a gift, bequest, favor, or loan from anyone except as follows: (c) a judge or a family member residing in the judge’s household may accept any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan only if the donor is not a party or person whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge: Here, at least David Roberts and his law firm Roberts Roberts Odefey & Witte were parties or persons whose interests had come before Judge Koetter. The Texas judicial elections of 2010 consisted of a Primary Election on March 2, 2010 and a General Election on April 13, 2010. Judge Koetter ran unopposed.
2. Judge Skipper Koetter took from Roberts and his law firm at least $5,900.10 before or after the hearing held on July 15, 2010 in violation of, inter alia, Canon 4 D (4)(c) (Judge Koetter may accept any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan only if the donor is not a party or person whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge 😉 and Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), which prohibits giving “anything of value” to a present, past, or future public official “for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.”
3. On July 15, 2010, Judge Koetter signed the judgment prepared by Roberts and other lawyers without glancing at Chen’s affirmative defenses and counter-claims filed on the record. See 7, 8.  Furthermore, within ten days of the judgment which was grossly offensive to decency, morality and legality, Chen filed a Motion for Reconsideration and New Trial but was abruptly denied. Shouldn’t such miscarriage of justice shock the judicial conscience?
4. In light of all the VOID Orders/Judgments repeatedly rendered against Chen absent standing and jurisdiction, and Judge Koetter’s refusal to rectify the judicial errors despite the VERIFIED MOTION TO REOPEN to vacate all the challenged VOID Orders/Judgments, Judge Koetter performed judicial duties with bias or prejudice.
5. Judge Koetter, in the performance of judicial duties, by words or conduct manifested bias or prejudice, including but not limited to bias or prejudice based upon race, national origin, age, or socioeconomic status, and knowingly permitted the Clerk subject to his direction and control to violate her mandatory duty to serve process under Rule 145 of TRCP commanded by the Texas Supreme Court, effectively shutting the courthouse door on this indigent litigant.
6. Judge Koetter did not accord to Chen who had a legal interest in the proceeding before him the right to be heard according to law. The Summary Judgment in Cause No. 10-6-28, the Default Judgment in 10-6-13752, and this ORDER OF DISMISSAL were rendered without complying with the Relevant Standard. Cause No. 10-6-29 held on 7/15/10 allowed Chen only three business days to subpoena potential witnesses in vain and prepare for the hearing constituting an “ambush.”
7. Judge Koetter did dispose of all judicial matters promptly, but inefficiently, incorrectly, and unfairly because we all know that money talks louder and can influence his decision.
8. 
   Your gavel looks shining and the balance money is heavier and more persuasive than none!

D. Administrative Responsibilities.

1. Judge Koetter did not diligently and promptly discharge his administrative responsibilities without bias or prejudice, e.g. Refusal to exercise the Court’s inherent power to vacate VOID Orders/Judgments, and did not maintain professional competence in judicial administration, e.g., Rendition of 6 VOID Orders/Judgments against Chen, and conspiracy with Judge Williams to stop the Clerk from performing her mandatory duty of service of process in connection with Chen’s counter-claims as well as Section 1983 Civil Rights Action filed on June 4, 2012, in which both judges were named Defendants.
2. Judge Koetter has failed to comply with Rule 12 of the Rules of Judicial Administration, knowing that the failure to comply is in violation of the rule, and that his removal from office or voluntary resignation is warranted.

E. Disciplinary Responsibilities. Apparently, Judge Koetter neglected his

     Disciplinary Responsibilities.

1. A judge who receives information clearly establishing that another judge has committed a violation of this Code should take appropriate action. A judge having knowledge that another judge has committed a violation of this Code that raises a substantial question as to the other judge’s fitness for office shall inform the State Commission on Judicial Conduct or take other appropriate action. Chen’s Section 1983 PETITION was intercepted for violating the VOID Summary Judgment of 11/30/2010 by Judge Williams in conspiracy with Judge Koetter despite both being named Defendants therein. Thus, both Judges Koetter and Williams committed violations of this Code that raised substantial questions as to their fitness for office. Shouldn’t they inform the State Commission on Judicial Conduct or take other appropriate actions such as Disqualification or Recusal?
2. Judge Koetter received information contained in 186-204 of Chen’s VERIFIED MOTION TO REOPEN, 209-227 of this VERIFIED AMENDED MOTION TO REOPEN clearly establishing that a lawyer, i.e., Randall W. Hill had committed a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct and perjury without taking any appropriate action. Judge Koetter having knowledge that Hill had committed a violation of the Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct that raised a substantial question as to the lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer in other respects should have informed the Office of the General Counsel of the State Bar of Texas or taken other appropriate action, but he failed to do so.  See Offenses Against Public Administration, Bribery and Corrupt Influence, Perjury and Other Falsification Committed by David Roberts, Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox, et al. in Conspiracy with Judge Skipper Koetter in the Judicial Proceedings Posted on December 21, 2012.
3. Canon 6 Compliance with the Code of Judicial Conduct: Being an active, full-time judge of the district court, Judge Koetter should have complied with all provisions of this Code, but he didn’t.

I am fiercely loyal to those willing to put their money where my mouth is. — Paul Harvey

I am fiercely loyal to those willing to put their money where my campaign contribution account is. — Slipper Koetter

***************************************************************************************

We represent a big oil company with tons of money. 

What we bring here in the shopping cart is only a small portion of it. 

If you rule for my client, you will have:

My client’s gold bars are in a Swiss bank’s vault. You just need a pass word to access them, your honor!*********************************************************************************************Corruption is worse than prostitution. The latter might endanger the morals of an individual, the former invariably endangers the morals of the entire country. — Karl Kraus Shame on you, Skipper Koetter, you have endangered the morals of the entire state of Texas and the United States.The government is so out of control. It is so bloated and infested with fraud and deceit and corruption and abuse of power. — Ted Nugent (American rock musician from Detroit, Michigan)

will.i.am

I cannot agree with you more! That’s why I have been fighting against Abuse and Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason, and Racketeering. That’s why I call Skipper Koetter Abuser and Misuser of Judicial Power, Trespasser, Usurpation, Conspirator, Corrupter, Traitor, and Racketeer. See How to Justifiably & Reasonably Charge the Officers of the Court with Abuse and Misuse of Judicial Power, Trespassing, Usurpation, Conspiracy, Corruption, Treason, and Racketeering? Posted on November 19, 2012.

 

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen

 

 

BRIBE, REWARD, GIFT UNDER THE GUISE OF CAMPAIGN CONTRIBUTIONS?!

JUSTICE IS BLIND!

“The distinction between a large campaign contribution and a bribe,” the late Senator Russell B. Long of Louisiana said, “is almost a hairline’s difference.”

Texas Penal Code – Section 36.02. Bribery

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally or knowingly offers, confers, or agrees to confer on another, or solicits, accepts, or agrees to accept from another: (1) any benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision, opinion, recommendation, vote, or other exercise of discretion as a public servant, party official, or voter; (2) any benefit as consideration for the recipient’s decision, vote, recommendation, or other exercise of official discretion in a judicial or administrative proceeding;

(e) An offense under this section is a felony of the second degree.

Second Degree Felony Range of Punishment – Texas Penal Code

§ 12.33. SECOND DEGREE FELONY PUNISHMENT.

(a) An individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree shall be punished by imprisonment in the institutional division for any term of not more than 20 years or less than 2 years.

(b) In addition to imprisonment, an individual adjudged guilty of a felony of the second degree may be punished by a fine not to exceed $10,000.

The Bribery Statute says that the briber and the bribee shall be equally imprisoned for 2 to 20 years.

 He is not stupid; he runs like hell because he knows: “Hell is empty and all the devils are here.” — William Shakespeare

No!

Not enough? I’ll get more tax-free money, your honor, as long as you rule in favor of my boss!

  

                                                                             JUSTICE IS BLIND!

 

An offense under this section of the Texas Bribery Statute is a felony of the second degree, which means 2 to 20 years in prison. And the amount is “anything of value.”

So bribers and bribees be ready for the handcuffs! As long as JUSTICE IS BLIND, you shall face the music one of these days!

I’ll continue to expose all your dark sides concealed in the court papers because of your conspiracy, fraudulent concealment and obstruction of justice, conspirators and co-conspirators! 

A social life like this is waiting for the conspirators and co-conspirators! 

 

Is $5,900.10  a large campaign contribution or a bribe? Well, it exceeded the ceiling of $5,200!

David Roberts & his law firm ranked No. 5 out of the top 30 donors! 

Top Contributors & Their Contributions to Judge Skipper Koetter

Source: See Texas Ethics Commission Report by The Texas Tribune.

Being the recipient of one of the Top Contributors, David Roberts and his law firm Roberts Roberts Odefey Witte LLP, Judge Koetter violated, inter alia, Canon 4 d (4)(c) & Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A) when these donors appeared in the proceedings before him.

1. Canon 4 D (4)(c) states: “a judge or a family member residing in the judge’s household may accept any other gift, bequest, favor, or loan only if the donor is not a party or person whose interests have come or are likely to come before the judge.” & Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A) prohibits giving “anything of value” to a present, past, or future public official “for or because of any official act performed or to be performed by such public official.”
2. Judge Koetter should have recused or disqualified himself under such circumstances, but he didn’t.

THE TEXAS TRIBUNE   Search Campaign Finance Data

Thursday, July 3, 2014

Juergen Koetter

3. Judicial Candidate/Officeholder View Filings on the Texas Ethics Commission’s website

Historical Contributions/Expenditures

Most Recent TEC Filings Contribution and Expenditure totals since previous filing Contributions Expenditures Cash On Hand Jan/2012May/2012Sep/2012Jan/2013May/2013Sep/2013Jan/2014 $20k$40k$60k$80k

Top Contributors

Name	Total Amount	# Contributions
Cole Cole & Easley	$7,000	2
Law Office of McManus & Crane LLP	$6,000	1
Benjamin Heilker	$3,500	3
Robert Hewitt	$3,000	2
Cullen Carsner Seerden & Cullen LLP	$2,645	2
Robert Hewitt	$2,050	5
Roberts Roberts & Odefey LLP	$1,850	2
Schwartz & Schwartz	$1,600	3
Macklin Johnson	$1,500	2
Howard Marek	$1,100	2
Emmett Cole	$1,100	2
M K Marlow Company Ltd. LLP	$1,000	1
John C Thompson	$1,000	1
Munson & Burns	$1,000	1
R W Briggs	$1,000	1
Roberts Roberts & Odefey LLP	$1,000	1
Rick Huegele	$1,000	1
DON TRUMAN	$1,000	2
Clifton Thomas	$1,000	1
ABC Bonding Company	$1,000	1
Bernard Klimist	$1,000	1
McKay & Coffey, LLP	$1,000	1
Robert McKay	$1,000	1
Royston Rayzor Vickery & Williams L.L.P.	$1,000	1
Carol A West	$1,000	1
Charles Benton	$1,000	1
James Cole	$1,000	1
H & H Overhead Door Co.	$1,000	1
Ben L. Parma III	$1,000	1
Brin and Brin P.C.	$1,000	1

1. According to the TEXAS ETHICS COMMISSION’s August 8, 2013 Afternoon Meeting Minutes, Juergen ‘Skipper’ Koetter (00051099) District Judge’s personal financial statement was due on April 30, 2013 and a late-filing penalty of $500 was on the record.
2. Besides the above Campaign Finance Data provided by The Texas Tribune, upon clicking  View Filings on the Texas Ethics Commission’s website, Chen ran across two more undated data, we will find over $3,050.10 more:

Contributions to Juergen Koetter from Roberts Roberts & Odefey LLP

Name	Type	Zip Code	Number Contributions		Contribution Total
Roberts Roberts & Odefey LLP	Contributor	77979	3		$2,050.10
Roberts Roberts & Odefey LLP	Contributor	77979	1		$1,000.00

Thus, $1,850.00 + $1,000.00 + $2,050.10 + $1,000 = $5,900.10 is recorded.

3. Roberts, Chen’s former lawyer, admitted that he was accustomed to playing cards with the district court judges, and that he preferred filing his pleadings with the state district court. Did some more cash change hands under the table? That is the question?! Wow! Looks like it could be right on the table!  The honorable juergen “skipper” koetter accepts your hot cash with thanks! How many cases have you filed in my court?skipper: Sorry, I must not show up with such cash in public! Got to hide!paul: Click the link: the honorable Juergen Skipper Koetter; I don’t think he can hide!Some words of advice you need to listen to, your honor:  With integrity, you have nothing to fear, since you have nothing to hide. With integrity, you will do the right thing, so you will have no guilt. —  Zig Ziglar

 

It has been my policy to auction off my orders and judgments

based on your bids of gold coins: The verdict goes to the highest bidder! 

Yes, we understand, your honor!

PLEASE CONTINUE TO :Judge Skipper Koetter: You violated Canons 1, 2, 3, 4, 6 & Bribery Statute!  July 19, 2014

 

Paul Chen

 

PREPARE TO FILE A PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITHOUT A LAWYER

MANDAMUS v. VOID Orders/Judgments

*Rules 52.3(j), 52.3(k) & 52.7 contain pitfalls for pro se litigants! Posted on October 11, 2013 by ricofraudonthecourt. These three rules are critical. If we violate any, the Petition will be denied without exceptions. Procedural errors are to be avoided at all costs!

I. MANDAMUS (WRIT OF MANDAMUS): * Here, I am only focusing on state court cases in which we attack VOID Orders/Judgments; federal cases will be posted in a separate BLOG. And I presume as a beginner, you are, like me, unfamiliar with MANDAMUS. Therefore, we have to learn the basics besides preparing ourselves for the task of eventually writing the PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

A. THE MEANING & ESSENTIALS OF MANDAMUS

1. MANDAMUS: The name of a writ, the principal word of which when the proceedings were in Latin, was mandamus, “we command” or “we order.” It’s a writ, more modernly called a “writ of mandate.”
2.  “The writ of mandamus can be issued in a mandamus proceeding, independent of any judicial proceeding. Generally, such a petition for a mandamus order is made to compel a judicial officer to perform a duty owed to the petitioner. If the parties fail to comply with a mandamus order, they may be held in Contempt of court and fined or jailed.” See TheFreeDictionary by Farlex.
3. MANDAMUS is an extraordinary relief. The higher court has to put aside some case in hand to take care of your PETITION or mine. Therefore, we cannot blame for the requirements being so stringent as to deny our PETITIONS even on the ground of a tiny procedural error.
4. Mandamus relief is generally available only if the court clearly abused its discretion and the party has no adequate remedy by appeal. See In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1005,1006-1007,2000 WL 854253 (Tex. June 29,2000)(per curiam); In re Long, 984 S.W.2d 623, 625 (Tex. 1999)(per curiam).
5. Mandamus is proper if a trial court issues an order beyond its plenary jurisdiction. See Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. at 1007; In re Dickason, 987 S.W.2d 570, 5 71 (Tex. 1998)(per curiam).
6. When attacking a void order by mandamus, it is not necessary to show no adequate remedy at law exists. See In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1007 WL 854253 (Tex. June 29, 2000)(per curiam).
7. Mandamus is not a writ of right, it is not consequently granted of course, but only at the discretion of the court to whom the application for it is made; and this discretion is not exercised in favor of the applicant, unless some just and useful purpose may be answered by the writ. 2 T. R. 385; 1 Cowen’s R. 501; 11 Shepl. 151; 1 Pike, 11.
8. This writ was introduced to prevent disorders from a failure of justice; therefore it ought to be used upon all occasions where the law has established no specific remedy, and where in justice and good government there ought to be one. 3 Burr. R. 1267; 1 T. R. 148, 9.; 2 Pick. 414; 4 Pick. 68; 10 Pick. 235, 244; 7 Mass; 340; 3 Binn. 273; 5 Halst. 57; Cooke, 160; 1 Wend. 318; 5 Pet. 190; 1 Caines, R. 511; John. Cas. 181; 12 Wend. 183; 8 Pet. 291; 12 Pet. 524; 2 Penning. 1024; Hardin, 172; 7 Wheat. 534; 5 Watts. 152; 2 H. & M. 132; 3 H. & M. 1; 1 S. & R. 473; 5 Binn. 87; 3 Conn. 243; 2 Virg. Cas. 499; 5 Call. 548. Mandamus will not lie where the law has given another specific remedy. 1 Wend. 318; 10 John. 484; 1 Cow. 417; Coleman, 117; 1 Pet. 567; 2 Cowen, 444; 2 McCord, 170; Minor, 46; 2 Leigh, 165; Const. Rep. 165, 175, 703.

B. SOME BASIC ONLINE ARTICLES TO READ:

1. MANDAMUS: THE HURDLES TO RELIEF – Haynes and Boone
2. PUTTIN’ ON THE WRITS Writs of Mandamus in Texas  By Helen A. Cassidy
3. SUCCEEDING IN MANDAMUS REVIEW  By JANE M.N. WEBRE
4. Is My Case Mandamusable? – St. Mary’s Law Journal –  By JUSTICE MARIALYN BARNARD, et al.
5. Mandamus–don’t forget the order By Mike Northrup: Texas Appellate Rule 52.3(k)(1)(A) requires that an appendix to a Petition for Writ of Mandamus must contain a certified or sworn copy of any order complained of, or any other document showing the matter complained of.

C. GOOGLE SEARCH FOR OUR RESPECTIVE STATE’S CASE LAW ON MANDAMUS, E.G., TEX. CASESLAW —> Mandamus Relief Criteria.

D. CONSULT AMPLE CASELAW FROM OTHER STATES.

E. GOVERNMENT CODE: The sources of jurisdiction most often used to support a writ of mandamus to the supreme court or to a court of appeals appear in the Government Code.

II. VOID Orders/Judgments

A. The Elements of VOID Orders/Judgments:

1. Lacking jurisdiction of the subject matter, or parties, and violation of due process are the  most important elements of a VOID Order or Judgment.

2. Judgment is a “void judgment” if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901.

3. When attacking a void order by mandamus, it is not necessary to show no adequate remedy at law exists. See In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., 43 Tex. Sup. Ct. J. 1007 WL 854253 (Tex. June 29, 2000)(per curiam).

4. Mandamus will lie to correct a void order, that is, an order the trial court had no power or jurisdiction to render. See Urbish v. 127th Judicial Dist. Court, 708 S.W.2d 429, 431 (Tex. 1986) (orig. proceeding). If an order is void, the relator need not show he lacks an adequate appellate remedy, and mandamus relief is appropriate. In re Sw. Bell Tel. Co., 35 S.W.3d 602, 605 (Tex. 2000) (orig. proceeding).

5. A judgment is void if it is shown that the court lacked jurisdiction 1) over a party or the property; 2) over the subject matter; 3) to enter a particular judgment; or 4) to act as a court. Jurisdiction could not be conferred by waiver or retroactively ELNA PFEFFER ET AL. v. ALVIN MEISSNER ET AL. (11/23/55) 286 S.W.2d 241.

B. SOME IMPORTANT ONLINE SOURCES:

1. 22 Reasons a Judgment is Void, The Really Big Deal is …
2. Law of Voids – Liberty For Life: Read all the cited cases, but concentrate on your state’s precedents. If this list is inadequate for your situation, Google search for more case law in your state. If unsuccessful, use some relevant precedents from other states.
3. Void Judgment Details – What makes a judgment void: EVERYTHING YOU ALWAYS WANTED TO KNOW ABOUT  VOID JUDGMENTS BUT WERE AFRAID TO ASK!

C.  CITING FACTS, LAW, STATUTES, CONSTITUTIONS, ETC. TO ATTACK THE VOID ORDERS/JUDGMENTS:

1. We must carefully cite sufficient facts to substantiate our claims, defenses, or counter-claims and search online focusing on the relevant case law in our respective state to strengthen our position.

2. Research relevant law, statutes, rules, the Constitutional Provisions of our respective state and those of the US Constitution, e.g., Texas Open Courts Doctrine, 1st and 14th Amendments to the US Constitution.

3. Refer to the samples of PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS.

4. Download our respective state’s  Rules of Appellate Procedure, e.g., Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure – Supreme Court of Texas.  Read the relevant rules with care to avoid making any procedural error, which will result in immediate dismissal.

5. Start drafting our own PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS, and revise it as many times as possible before submitting it to the appropriate court.

6. Make a request to the state District Clerk, and designate the court record to be submitted to the Appellate Court.

7. If you encounter any procedural problems, ask the Appellate Court Clerk for help.

8. Send it to the Appellate Clerk by PRIORITY MAIL without return receipt because we can track the DELIVERY time and date online without extra cost.

9. Never forget to sign the PETITION and CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE before a Notary Public because a VERIFIED PETITION is essential.

********************************************************************************

* It took me ten years to realize that MANDAMUS: VOID Orders/Judgments is my salvation after having suffered through my opponents’ fraud, and the opposing counsel’s fraud on the court in conspiracy with the corrupt judges who “are proud to be in their pockets,” quoting a certain judge’s own admission/statement. I believe the campaign contributions are to blame for the corruption of the officers of the court, including, but not limited to, lawyers and judges, e.g., David Roberts, Randall W. Hill, and Juergen “Skipper” Koetter!

Money is absolutely heavier, isn’t it, your honor?

You see: I swear I see nothing, not even Mexican 500 pesos!

* “Relators had on average a 10.3% chance of receiving their requested relief.” See Eugene A. Cook, Ten Year Analysis of Supreme Court Activity, 11 APP. ADVOC. no. 4, 1998, at 3, 5 (noting that in 1997, only 27 out of 326 petitions were granted, meaning relators had an eightpercent chance of success with mandamus proceedings). — The above study warns us that the chance of receiving MANDAMUS relief is very slim, and that we must make our petition impeccable to join the minority of winners.

**********************************************************************************

A WORD OF ADVICE:

Sun Tzu (544 BC — 496 BC), Chinese military general, strategist, philosopher, and author of The Art of War, said: “Know your enemy and know yourself and you can fight a hundred battles without disaster.”

Thus, know your opponent. Look for his or her weaknesses.

For example, I was lucky enough to contact the office of Texas Secretary of State to inquire about Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., which happened to be an ASSUMED NAME, and its CERTIFICATE expired on June 5, 1993 without any renewal. Consequently, it was factually, and legally non-existent, and it had no standing to sue. See Expiration of Assumed Name Certificate and Standing to Sue Posted on May 18, 2012. Besides, there are so many other fundamental defects in my opponents’ pleadings that I am sure of having justice served one of these days despite countless setbacks in the past ten years.

Can’t you see the resemblance of Terry J. Cox & Anita L. Koop in this spooky couple? Terry & Anita are the owners of the non-existent Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., which illegally acquired and sold real property without having to pay any income tax, state or federal, since June 6, 1993 when its Assumed Name Certificate expired without renewal even today. See AnitaS Resort Property, Inc. – Wysk & Assuming the Assumed Name Certificate of Anita’s Resort…

 “It is Government’s first duty to protect the people, not run their lives,” said Ronald Reagan.

“Exposing their fraud is my duty; prosecuting them is that of the government, federal or state,” said Paul Chen.

Another good example is my accidental online discovery of the $5,900.10 donated to Judge Koetter by David Roberts and his law firm Roberts Roberts, Odefey, Witte LLP before and after the 7/15/2010 hearing. Consequently, Judge Koetter violated Canon 4 d (4)(c) & Bribery Statute 18 U.S.C. § 201(c)(1)(A), which was publicized in JUDGE JUERGEN (SKIPPER) KOETTER: My readers were wrong! So was I!

Take the bribe, reward, or gift in the name of campaign contribution.

Don’t worry, your honor! Don’t you see my lips are sealed?  No one will ever know about this?!

Please click  Mr. Juergen (Skipper) Koetter: You should be removed, not just reprimanded!   Posted on November 15, 2013 by ricofraudonthecourt to have a good look at the handsome, wise Mr. Roberts, who sings well, too!

Is this Judge Juergen (Skipper) Koetter?

The secret of getting ahead is getting started. — Mark Twain

The secret of getting ahead is getting started taking as much money as you can. — Paul Chen — Think of it as a fan! Take it, your honor!

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you’ve got it made. — Groucho Marx

The secret of business is to know something that nobody else knows. — Aristotle Onassis Including bribery, right?

TO BE CONTINUED.

Paul Chen