Friday, January 24, 2020

Texas Supreme Court Rejects Pro-Life Case – Motion to Reconsider Filed

Texas Supreme Court Rejects Pro-Life Case – Motion to Reconsider Filed

The Supreme Court of Texas declined to take up case 19-0325, but there is a pending motion to reconsider. The Supreme Court of Texas is filled with great people who I am certain would care about the issues involved in this case, but more likely than not, the Supreme Court of Texas simply didn’t directly get told in the filings that the issue at hand involved life and access to justice as the technical legal arguments do not outright say this, and the Court gets a lot of cases and cannot take up them all. That is why a motion to reconsider the case has been filed with the SCOTX and the motion to reconsider specifically points out the importance of this case and for unborn baby life and pregnant women and access to justice.
This case has some pretty strong implications about the rights of unborn baby life and medical expenses and access to justice. Effectively, the lower court and 9th Court of Appeals has determined that unborn baby and pregnant mother medical expenses are not necessary and must be paid after court costs in a case. This ruling was a huge strike against women and babies and access to justice in general. The SCOTX not taking up the case effectively approves of and allows to stay in place the lower rulings which have wide-reaching implications.
The text of the Motion to Reconsider is here below:
Unborn Baby Expenses should NOT come after court costs and this Supreme Court should NOT vote AGAINST life. Access to Justice is DENIED if lower courts can simply refuse to consider expenses before determining ability to afford court costs.
Comes now Appellant and request this Honorable Supreme Court of Texas to reconsider appellant’s Petition for Review.
I request this court to reconsider their decision not to take up a petition for review of the above referenced cause. On the face of the appeal, the issues might not seem important enough for this Supreme Court to take up, even with apparent flaws or issues of the underling orders. I understand there are a lot of cases and the SCOTX can only take up a small percentage of them, however, I would like to express to this court that the underlying issues are much more important than they appear at first glance.
First, A denial of the Supreme Court’s review of this case will be a major anti-life statement. The 9th Court of Appeals decided that medical expenses of an unborn baby and pregnant mother are NOT valid expenses that should be paid before having to pay court costs of an appeal. Specifically, I had filed motion of material change in financial circumstances in regards to paying the large amount of court costs of an appeal. The change in circumstance was due to my wife becoming pregnant and there being new and vital medical expenses for the life of my unborn son and the health of my pregnant wife. The 9th Court of Appeals denied this motion and then dismissed the appeal stating that there had been NO reasonable reason for not being able to pay court costs. The 9th Court of Appeals effectively and literally determined that the life and health of an unborn baby and pregnant mother are NOT worth of consideration, and NOT reasonable or necessary to pay before having to pay appeals court costs. Appeals court costs must come first before medical expenses for the life and health of a baby is the statement and decision made by the 9th Court of Appeals. If this Supreme Court of Texas refuses to take up this petition for review, then this court is effectively agreeing with and upholding the radically wrong anti-life decision by the 9th Court of Appeals. Clearly the issues of this case are not simply about a small court costs disagreement, but rather it is about a much bigger and more important issues which will send an anti-life message across Texas if not reviewed by this Honorable Supreme Court.
Second, a denial of the Supreme Court’s review of this case will be a major blow to Access to Justice (which this Court has pushed hard recently to reform to allow access), and it would send a statement to Texas that Supreme Court guidelines for determining ability to afford costs are irrelevant and allow for lower court to use different and contradictory and vague and unconstitutional guidelines to determine inability to pay for access to courts and therefore violates due process. Specifically, in this instant case, the lower court did not follow the set guidelines and rules regarding affidavits of inability to afford costs. The biggest flaw is that the lower court did not even consider any personal or business expenses or obligations before determining ability to afford costs. This completely contradicts the Texas Supreme Court having rewritten indigency rules to require examination of ability to afford, not just ability to pay. Income of any amount cannot alone be examined before determining ability to afford costs without having first having examined expenses to or other obligations to determine what portion of income is even available to use after necessary expenses to live. In this instant case, the lower court NEVER examined ANY expenses or obligations and therefore could never have determined my ability to afford costs at that time. The lower court did not even examine my personal bank account or current personal income. The lower court only examined the money of a small business corporation that I had an ownership interest in. The court saw a few thousand dollars in the company account at the end of each month and said hey I should just raid the company account and get that money to pay my personal court costs because I am able to access the company bank account. Had the trial court actually followed indigency and ability to afford guidelines, the trial court would have seen that any payments I had gotten from the company were a year before the indigency hearing and and had not been received in nearly a year and the company had no positive value to me and was a young company owned by financing and another business who financed the start of the company and therefore was not even a positive asset to add as current income or asset positive value on an ability to afford cost form. Me simply being able to access the company bank account does not mean that the company money is mine to take even if I had gotten payments previously when the company had the ability to pay. The other owner of the company actually has a court order from a different court which PROHIBITS me from taking company money, which he has a majority interest in and which are for paying company expenses, and using it for my personal court costs. I would actually be violating a court order if I did take company money for personal expenses. But even if the court did determine I could just raid the company account, The court was required to, but never examined any expenses or obligations because if it had it would have found that the little money left over in the business account was to pay for the next week payroll of the employees of the small business or the taxes every three months or the debt payment to the companies and financial institutions that effectively owned the company through financing agreements. The lower court and opposing attorney Scott Browne and 9th Court of Appeals would have me commit fraud or other serious crimes or unethical behavior by taking company money that belonged to employee pay or belonged to the customer who gave that money to the business to but them a new heater. Surely this honorable Supreme Court would not agree with me resorting to stealing from employee paychecks or committing fraud by taking money from the company account that is there to pay for a customer parts? And that is the massive issue with this case. The issue is that the lower court and even the appeals court have simply ignored the SCOTX guidelines for determining ability to afford costs. This lower court and the 9th Court of Appeals determination to ignore necessary expenses violates due process and the Constitution because true ability to afford costs to access the courts cannot be determined without having examined both income AND expenses. What is the point of this SCOTX creating ruled for examining ability to afford costs to allow for access to justice if the lower courts and the appeals court can simply ignore these guidelines and declare someone able to pay costs without having ever determined expenses and ability to actually use income. This is an issue that is widespread and greatly impacts other Texans and deprives many other people of the ability to access courts if there are no enforceable standards of determining indigency and examining expenses before making a determination about ability to afford costs. In fact, this Supreme Court of Texas has a different case, a habeas corpus case, before it right now involving a young father Joshua Jaros who was jailed without having a right to be represented by an attorney. That case before the SCOTX is cause 19-1101 and this court has yet to rule on that case. In that case, Joshua declared his inability to afford an attorney and the trial court denied him a court appointed attorney without having considered his expenses and ability to afford an attorney. The 9th Court of Appeals was again the appeals court in this case and the 9th Court of appeals declared that expenses and actual ability to afford costs don’t ever have to be considered. Interestingly though, the 9th Court of appeals, in their upholding that the trial court did not need to examine expenses for determining indigency for a court ordered attorney, specifically acknowledged caselaw regarding the need to examine expenses for ability to pay court costs. The 9th court of appeals has contradicted themselves by denying the need to examine expenses in my inability to afford court costs, while acknowledging in Joshua’s case that expenses do need to be considered for court costs and ability to afford them. Clearly there is a pattern of different people being denied due process and being denied constitutional rights due to Texas trial courts and specifically the 9th Court of appeals determining and upholding this flawed notion that it is ok to determine that someone can pay for court costs or for an attorney and can be denied these rights to access justice and rights to a court appointed attorney by simply declaring they can pay without ever having actually examined their ability to afford and without ever having considered expenses and obligations. The SCOTX must take up this issue and provide clarification and enforcement of guidelines for determining ability to afford and access to justice, instead of the lower courts and the appeals court having different and even contradictory guidelines to determine ability to afford which allows for ignoring expenses and violated due process.
I pray that this honorable Supreme Court of Texas reconsider their denial to take up my petition for review of the above referenced case. I pray this court takes up my petition for review due to the important and far reaching issues and implications of the underlying case regarding life and access to justice and guidelines for inability to afford determinations

Sunday, January 19, 2020

Texas Supreme Court to Rule on #FreeJoshJaros - Constitutional Rights to Attorney at Stake

I recently helped file a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the Supreme Court of Texas regarding the egregious constitutional violations of Judge Patrice McDonald in Montgomery County, Texas. Hopefully the SCOTX will stand up for the Constitution and Free Joshua Jaros. Specifically, Judge McDonald refused to allow Joshua Jaros to have an attorney in a criminal proceeding, and then threw him in jail for a debt that he could not afford and without the chance to have an attorney to represent him and present his case as the Constitution requires.

The Joshua Jaros Habeas Corpus petition Supreme Court case number is 19-1101 IN RE JOSHUA LEROY JAROS. 

If the name Judge Patrice McDonald sounds familiar, it is because she has been in the headlines recently by Investigative Reporter Wayne Dolcefino. Wayne has been exposing Judge McDonald after she threatened to throw a man in jail for not paying for an attorney and for spousal support for his bigamist ex in a divorce proceeding.

The man, Mark Athans, filed for divorce after he found out his wife of 5 months was already married. The woman was a fraudster and charged with Felony Bigamy. The marriage between Mark and woman was voided in the state in which it occurred. That didn’t stop Judge McDonald though who proceeded with the divorce case and refused to consider that there is no marriage due to the fraud and felony behavior of Mark’s ex, and even was going to jail the victim Mark if he did not pay his con artist ex’s attorney fees.

The latest victim of Judge McDonald is Joshua Jaros, who now sits in jail after having his Constitutional rights tossed out the window. The situation with Josh Jaros reveals a bigger issue with the horrible family law system in Texas in which good parents, mostly fathers, get separated from their children which causes a ripple effect of harm to the children and society as a whole. Reducing incentive for parents to fight over children should be a priority in Texas. Equal Shared Parenting laws overwhelmingly and on a bi partisan basis passed out of the Texas House this past session but never made it to the floor. Children should be able to have access and love from both fit parents, and parents should not have incentive to fight with their children’s lives and instead have to practice equal shared parenting. This would reduce the factual devastating effects on children that this fighting and parental alienation causes because parents will be forced to share costs and parenting instead of parents using their children as pawns to get a little more parenting time to hurt their ex or to be able to get more child support or be awarded legal fees for their lawyers.

Josh Jaros was jailed in Montgomery County Texas after he received no jury trial and after he was denied an attorney which is a basic constitutional right and is even Texas Law. There were other issues as well such as fatal flaws in the notice and pleadings. Josh Jaros is a great father who supports and takes care of his kids but could not pay the several hundred dollars a month to his ex-wife each month after Josh already pays to take care of his kids half the time and provides a roof over their head and food for them to eat etc. Both parents should always be able to equally be with their children if there is no threat of harm or violence etc, and supporting children in Texas means both parents taking care of the children equally. Texas needs to pass equal shared parenting laws so that children get to have both of their parents in their lives, and it would exponentially cut down on the fighting and tearing apart and bankrupting of families in the court system of fit parent had no choice but to share their child equally instead of being able to go to court and fight for more time or more money. #FreeJoshJaros

The Texas and US Constitutions require that any criminal defendant has a right to an attorney and even the right to have one appointed for them if they are unable to afford one. Seems pretty straight forward right? Unfortunately, the Court systems in Texas (and in the Nation) do not always follow the Constitution and are in need of serious reform. The Constitutional rights we all hold dear frequently get tossed out the window in courtrooms where judges can virtually do whatever they want with immunity. There are many good and great Judges who follow the law and the Constitution, but there are also Judges who do not. There is very little oversight when clear laws and rules are violated by judges. There is even less method of reprimanding a Judge, and even less of an adequate way to reverse a Judge who clearly violates the law or the Constitution. If the Law or the Constitution says a Judge has to do something specific, and the judge simply refuses, then what recourse does someone have? Just because the law says it MUST be done does not mean a judge has to follow it because there is NO reason for them to. They won’t be disciplined. They MIGHT be overturned if you can get an appeals court to take interest in the case but that could take years on appeal. Mandamus is the appropriate form of demanding that a Judge follow the law or constitution when it is clear they have not during the pendency of a case, but mandamus is rarely taken up even if the judge is completely wrong because the appeals court does not have to take them up and can just say they don’t have time to rule on the mandamus. Texas must create a better system of immediate and mandatory review when there is a question of whether or not a judge in a case is not following a clear and mandatory law or rule that must be followed. People’s lives and time and money should not have to wait for years of appeals to overturn a bad judge when there is a clear violation of law or rule by a judge. The clear violation by a judge should be resolved quickly so the underlying case moves forward and gets resolved in a fair and unbiased manner. Judges should be more strictly required to follow mandatory laws and procedures or face real consequences. As it stands now, Judges have no incentive to actually follow mandatory requirements if they know they will not get in trouble.

Thursday, January 9, 2020

Protests/Boycotts for George Lopez show 1/10/20 after Tweet offering to Assassinate President Trump

Rallies, Boycotts and Protests are just part of the reaction waiting for George Lopez when he comes to Beaumont, TX tomorrow 1/10/2020. This is in response to George Lopez having tweeted that he would assassinate President Trump for half the bounty that Iran was offering. Also, does the Constitution protect this kind of speech? Yes and No.
Following President Trump’s military operation to take out Iranian terrorist Qasem Soleimani, who was responsible for the deaths of hundreds of Americans, Comedian/Actor George Lopez responded on twitter in reference to the bounty put on United States of America President Donald J. Trump. The response from George Lopez was “We’ll do it for half.” see picture of tweet below
George Lopez promoting, agreeing and accepting an offer to kill the President of the United States is appalling and possibly criminal, and the backlash to George Lopez was swift. In fact, as fate would have it, George Lopez has a show this Friday night right here in southeast Texas. In the past couple of days, local news feeds have been flooded with local businesses and residents calling for a boycott of the show. Screenshots of all of these reactions and planned rallies and boycotts are posted below. One local businessman Rustin Guarnere posted on facebook that he is offering $2000 off any new home plus $2500 in furniture for anyone buying a new home who brings him their George Lopez ticket. Judy Nichols, the chair of the Republican Party of Jefferson County Texas, released a statement responding to the George Lopez event. She is also organizing a rally to support President Trump just outside the George Lopez event. Another local businesswoman, MrsMobile Home Magan, posted on facebook for anyone who bought a home from her and gives her their tickets then she will give them double what they paid for the ticket so she can burn the ticket. Another local resident posted screenshots of the seats available and it shows there are more seats available now than 3 days ago due to people apparently canceling of returning their tickets. Screenshots of local news coverage of the reactions and planned protests are also attached below.
I am a big advocate of the Constitution, including the First Amendment right to freedom of speech. That only protects from government restriction of speech. That does not mean there will not be consequences for speech such as rallies or boycotts form people who have differing opinions and want to express their contrary beliefs. The First Amendment should protect anyone from criminal prosecution as well for freedom of speech. There is a limit though as the First Amendment does not protect against some kinds of threats. While studying at Texas A&M University in College Station, TX, I had a constitutional law class as part of my political science degree course load. The professor made an example for us of what is protected and what is not. It would be perfectly legal and constitutional for George Lopez to say someone should take up the bounty. It would be perfectly legal and constitutional for George Lopez to say someone should kill the president. He would not be specifically directing anyone to go kill the president and he isn’t saying he is going to go do it himself as a specific and direct threat. He is expressing a horrible opinion that he will get backlash or even civil lawsuits for, but is non the less constitutional as anyone in America has a right to express their opinions without government restriction saying they cannot. However, George Lopez seems to have gone beyond saying someone should take up the bounty against President Trump. George Lopez specifically stated he would take up the bounty and only wants half the money. That certainly on its face appears to be a specific threat and agreement to kill the president for a price. George Lopez at the very least should get questioned and investigated to ensure there is no threat from him, and he might should be charged as well. I am a big fan of criminal justice reform and a big supporter of the constitution. We have a lot or problems with unconstitutional laws and prosecutorial misconduct and over regulation. I’m not saying he should be thrown in jail and throw away the key, and I even believe that many laws restricting speech are unconstitutional as everyone has a right to say whatever opinion they want. But George Lopez might have crossed that line of opinion by stating that he was taking up a bounty to go through with an assassination of the President. At minimum, his speech does have non-governmental consequences which are now being seen right here in southeast Texas.