Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided June 1, 2018·No. 05-18-00567-CV·Published

Opinion

FXLED IN NO. O5-18-00567-CV Courl of Appeals

COURT OF APPEALS JUN 012018 RECEIVE APPEA S COURT OF FIFTH DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS, Lisa Matz Clerk, 5th District JUN 0 12018 DALLAS,TEXAS

USA MATZ CLERK, 5th DISTRICT DARLENE C. BALISTRERI-AMRHEIN, APPELLANT VS. 1. ATTORNEY LENNIE BOLLINGER, Ct at, WORMINGTON & BOLLINGER LAW FIRM, et al, 2. PROSPERITY BANK, JO’EL ELONY, KEENA CLIFTON, NAOMI THAMES, CHRISTINA SANDERS, SANDRA MCDONALD, SUSAN ALGER, et at; 3. MUSKAT, MAHONY, DEVINE LAW FIRM, ATTORNEY MICHELLE MAHONY, ATTORNEY JOHN GRUFF, et at; 4. UNITED STATES EASTERN DISTRICT COURT OF TEXAS , MAGISTRATE

JUDGE CHRISTINE NOWAK, JUDGE AMOS MAZZANT; 5. COBB, MARTINEZ, WOODLAND LAW FIRM, ATTORNEY CARRIE JOHNSON PHANEUF, ct al;

6. COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO.6, JUDGE JAY BENDER, et at; APPELLEES

ORIGINAL PROCEEDING from the

COUNTVCOURTATMWNO. 6, COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS JUDGE DAN WILSON (Recused) & JUDGE JA V BENDER, PRESIDING CA USE NO. 006-02654-2017 APPELLANT’S SECOND DOCKET STATEMENT COMES NOW, Appellant, Darlene C. Balistreri-Amrhein to file a Second Docket Statement as requested from this above Appellate Court under No. 05-18-00567-CV as follows briefly: 1) This Appeal was filed before learning Civil Practices & Remedies Code Chapter 11 only Qualifies by Writ of Mandamus, so upon discovery Writ of Mandamus filed on May 25, 2018 in this above Court of Appeals on this same lawsuit Cause No. 006-02654-20 17, along with In Forma Pauperis Affidavit & there was no assigned numbers to the writ of Mandamus to date; (Appellant / Realtor contacted Claudia at the Court to inform her of these latest developments & discovery for Appeal Court’s information & then received post cards from Lisa Matz, which this filing addresses) (All named Appellees denied “service of process” in conspiracy & cover up.)

2) APPELLANT BRIEFLY STATES THE REASON FOR THIS APPEAL UNLESS WRIT OF MANDAMUS RULES OTHERWISE, BECAUSE LOWER COURT ORDERS DO NOT APPLY TO APPELLANT I PLAINTIFF AS UNSUPPORTED & UNLAWFUL;

Lower Court Judge Dan Wilson, Defendants & Judge Jay Bender as it applies:

3) No proper jurisdiction outside of qualified limits of less than $100,000.00, disqualified;

4) Criminal Judge does not have jurisdiction on Probate matters & “legal malpractice:”

5) Considers jurisdiction as unnecessary & reckless in following rules of civil procedure;

6) Without jurisdiction, not permitted to preside in any lawsuit & sign any Orders;

7) Does not have ability to declare jurisdiction as it must be proven or not proper;

8) Can’t hear lawsuits over $100,000.00 & this lawsuit is at $200,000.00 or more as filed;

9) This assignment was an error admitted by Judge Mary Murphy as removed from office;

10) Discriminates against Plaintiff by age, disabilities, pro se litigant & incapacitated;

11) Does not respond to any of Plaintiffs Court filings, shows bias & prejudice;

12) Denies Americans with Disabilities Act / ADA federal law with Federal Court Orders;

13) Denies Plaintiff as “protected class,” who is medically incapacitated Medical Stay;

14) Refuses 5 Surgeons letters / statements of Plaintiff’s medical condition & treatments; 15) Reftises surgeons restrictions & “no work,” calls him & then is slandered in filings;

16) Sets up phone conference knowing Plaintiff in ER hospital, MRJ, CT Scans, Medicated;

17) Claims ADA accommodations, Plaintiff can’t appear, can’t walk, medicated & in pain;

18) Did not read or examine Plaintiffs Court filings as obvious from reposes to Attorneys;

19) Does not follow the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure & Federal Rules of Civil Procedure;

20) No understanding of “Void Judgments” as void, legal nullity & no enforcements;

21) Does not enforce anything against Defendants & Attorneys showing bias & prejudice;

22) By denying “Medical Stay” is practicing medicine without a Texas Medical License;

23) Not interest in any evidence, any cited Rule of Law, not unbiased triers of facts;

24) Participates & allows Conspiracy with Defendants, Attorneys & Other Courts;

25) Allows the Federal Court Order of Reversed Judge Nowak to taint & influence case;

26) Allows peiury by Defendants & their Attorneys illegally as criminal Judge in case:\

27) Allows continued slander against Plaintiff illegally as a criminal Judge in case;

28) Allows continued cover up against Plaintiff illegally as a criminal Judge in case;

29) Allows Defendants & their Attorneys to attack Plaintiffs Civil Liberties in case;

30) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to attack Plaintiffs U.S Constitutional Rights in case;

31) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to confiscate all Plaintiffs Medical Records & HIPPA;

32) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to confiscate all Plaintiffs Sensitive Data Id theft;

33) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to Threaten Plaintiff, purpose of intimidation & case;

34) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to Harass Plaintiff unsafely had to move out of house;

35) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to Slander Plaintiff to others calling her a forger;

36) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to confiscate Plaintiffs sworn notarized statements;

37) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to Harass Business & person on Plaintiff notaries;

38) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to commit Perjury in lawsuit by false claims & filings; 39) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to Threaten to seize all Plaintiffs Social Security funds;

40) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to cover up legal malpractice by holding case file past

“statute of limitations” with accommodations, cause destruction of wrongful death, trust

Rights for estate & inheritance, which is videotaped from deceased Anthony J. Balistreri;

41) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to cover up crimes of assault, theft, property damages;

42) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to cover up filing in wrong court, denied right to jury

trial, refused communications for months, refused mediation, bias, prejudice with opposing

party, refused timely notice of Court Orders, no properjurisdiction, refused correction of

pleading, lied service of process, denied complete client file, reffised to add indispensable

parties, refused to examine evidence & prepare for trial, withdraws before hearing suit;

43) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to falsely claim trustee representing deceased Balistreri

unlawfully & when Attorney & video evidence is submitted to Court that portion of case is

reftised, because it’s automatic “legal malpractice” liabilities against them as matter of law;

44) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to engage in collusion & conspiracy with Federal

Court Attorneys & Judges to destroy both lawsuits for the same organized RICO affect;

45) Judge Bender refuses recusal, Judge Wilson recused self as disqualified by laws;

46) Judge Wilson demands responses, while Plaintiff is medicated, hospitalized & refused

all court filed evidence, then charges over $16,000 plus in Attorneys fees unlawfully;

47) Allows Defendants & Attorneys allowed to stalk Plaintiffs actions & whereabouts;

48) Falsely claims Plaintiffs filings disproves incapacity & medical condition, when they

were to prevent their false agenda, lies, conspiracy & cover up no matter the pain in case;

49) Allows Defendants & Attorneys to try & silence Plaintiff with false “vexatious litigant”

claims, with No Support, No Adverse Orders, separating pending or incorrect lawsuits;

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm, (Tex. Ct. App. 2018).

Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm (Darlene C. Amrhein v. Attorney Lennie F. Bollinger, and Worminton & Bollinger Law Firm) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.
322 U.S. 238 (Supreme Court, 1944)
United States v. Beggerly
524 U.S. 38 (Supreme Court, 1998)
Bankers Mortgage Company v. United States
423 F.2d 73 (Fifth Circuit, 1970)
In Re MacHne Israel, Inc.
48 F. App'x 859 (Third Circuit, 2002)
People v. Zajic
410 N.E.2d 626 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1980)
Elgin Airport Inn, Inc. v. Commonwealth Edison Co.
410 N.E.2d 620 (Appellate Court of Illinois, 1980)
National Surety Co. v. State Bank
120 F. 593 (Eighth Circuit, 1903)