Frank, Sherman Marvin

• Court: Court of Appeals of Texas
• Decided: March 9, 2015
• Docket: WR-52,604-03
• Status: Published

Opinion

In The Texas Court Of Criminal Appeals And for It's Juatices,At A0stin T0x&~

Ma vi n Fr.::. n !: ShE. r man Complainant/RElator Trial Cuase#810774/810774-C Versus, Texas Court of Crina~ A~peals John/Jane Doe,Actin~ Trial C a s e Wr i t ti: Court's Judge,for the 339th -~-----·--·-----

District Court of Harris - County,Tex&s,et al:Lin6a Garcia, As ~"'UD'l""'Hi ~.1.1..:J "'1·:-··lc .~. --'-~ of.""'"':"'·--·!.-,·;- i~.._~.-.i. .... LGo- . .1·- D~ct-- .1.-.~ ·tLte~~e.·n\\n~n R~fi \Jlltb~bUWlbJ.YI UU~ r j_ c t 1'. l: torr. e. y ( T .:o ;; • Be. r I . D • it 0 0 7 8 7 1 f~f~ fRO . 6 • . · . a~llft Q tor- Horris county Texas ; L e s 1 i 2 He r.n.-:. . . umenL contams so_m®COURT Of CIPliMINAl Rrrgt\Y9 dez,Assuming Deputy to Criminal p~~~-~ atar~ofp~orqualnilf . UAR 09 2015 Tria 1 , uno E:: r c h r i .s Da n i e: 1 , e t a 1 . . . &Uue ~~ 1tbe of tmagmg. ra Resj?ondsr.t ( s).

R~lator's Ori~inal Applicantion For A-Writ of Mandamus,Pursuc.nt To S~ction 22.22l(b) of th~ T~xas Government Cod~~ ..

Let There be un~erstandin~!as Relator com~s before th~ T2xc.s Court of Crimin&l App£als jUstices,Res2on~2rit·(s) 6£ interst : R~l&tor ic in 2ursue of his requests for a Writ of Mandamus in his in6ividual - Persona propria capacity statue or.Pro Se standinge,pursuant to Articl~ r,§l2- of the Texa~ Constitution and Article ll.07(3)(b) of the T~xa~ Code of Criruir1~l Procedure.DeLeon V.Districk Clerk,Lynn County~l87,473,474-475(Tcx.Cr.App.2006).

However,Mt~vi~ Frank Sh~r~an1Relator h~reir. after,brin~s hi~ wai1t of the appli- cation for a Writ of Man~amus as~inst tri~l Court's Officers mentioned abov2,as I

a whole or in6ivi6ually seperatsd in intentionally using the wrong proce6ural 6DC suspending the the Writ of habeas cor~us under colorab~e Constitutionbl vio- lation claims raisc6 within Relstor'e hsbeas cor~us p2tition-Applicaticn,along - w~t~ his merucrBr1dum of law c.ttach~d therewi~h~Inparticular with Relator's Ground- On€ Error of law that Presents the issue of the Trial Court art6 it's presidipg- jtidge's lack of subject~~.atter jUrisdiction over the cause number 810774 and P~r-

ti~s of interGst.But that cause of action is founded on a fraudulent and forged --~ indic~me~t.Thus,the trial judge acts fell clearly out side of it's subject-ruat- ~~er ~urisdiction,-which are acts beyond th2 scope of law or } udicial authoritj- 7(and without anJkind of lawful ~u~gm~nt ,commercial pa~er~work,contra~ts,nor pro- of of ~laims,and those OtTRA VIRES ACTS cann6t ·be recojrriz~d as Vblid j~dicial~ " ·act._ ;f I2.w.Hence,l:his i~..suE: 2ub ~uci.cc.· _is not betona the 'I'exa.s .. Cour<:: oZ CriiLliEc.l I

~"~~AJ?fJE::ol-s justices rE:oach ano C:ocs have oriyjill'llal ~lQJ(".iS~ie:'t:l«:llfi over i.:he said cauSE:· &

-,.~ .. RartiE.s of int~fE;st'$0 c.s .to- cor,siaer·Relc.tor's application lor issuirt'::j oi the:. ~Writ of Mandc.rnus~in· [~]hiQ trim~n&l legal rnc.tte:.r,pursuant ~o Article:. S,§SA o f - the Texas Constitution,w:1ich ma.l<;:e thf: justices part of the .Juoicia;:-y Act,a.s too disputes wh i c h h a vt-.' a r i .sed o v e.~.: -. t h Eo · en f o ·-~ c "'"n-, ~ '" · · t es ~over~Eo d b i ti12 Texas ~ n ·L·- .o f. scacu

Code of Crimin~l Prc~edure:,~an.-o~-L,hl'ch • .~.-rl'sc - ~ - ~s -~ r.~sulLL ~ r o~-or-1nc1ocnt to a ~ •. ' '

~- 1 • f

Cr. ;;pp. ~:.9.801) • Here by ,.invoking the ju::c i s(;i ct ion of. this · sa·i d Appellate's j u:c i sd i- c t i on and the J u d g e s there b f have the power to iss u f.: t h c wr i t o f IILlla.ndialiJJIIlU!.S: r (; J i E:~ f-

against and upon the acting assisened habeas corpus ~udge[~ohn/Jane doe) or and- its Cbbrtis clerk(s) or and Leslie H~rnandez,acting as fo~ ~1. Post Trial department,with the Title head of CQRIS DANIEL,as the Harris County District Cle- rk's Office,of whom singly and individually or Jointly with the trial Court's - recalcitrant(s)-(jane/john) clerk(s) who refu~e to file,oocket and process for - Srevice under Art.ll.Ol,ll.02,ll.03,ll.04,*ll.O~ ;11.14(1) to (5),ll.l5;ll.-16.of· inwchich are codified provisions in accord with Padilla V.Rumsed,352 F.3d 352,- 7G9(2nd Cir.2003),cert.Granted, U.S. ,124 S.Ct.l353,1356(2004),which is- is instructive setablishments· for the proper and legal ~rocedures on the actu&l- re~uir€:ments of ~roces~ for and by thL trial. Court! (s) S€:rvice u~on th~ leyal- Respond~nt(s) by certified mail,and then thereaftbr the Senior War6en,E66ie D. - Baker woulo have been, ser.·v-eC: a sun·,r,·,orr.s anc ·c.s ·wL1l &s c. eoriiple:-irli: ,·2.nd .sE:rvc6 in-, co~~liance with Rules 2la or an6 106 of th~-~~~bE Rules of Civil Procedure.th~n­ this woulC: have B¥rved the proper·and ~egal·~rocedures were applied tradiLonally,- ano theref:ore-.,th<:o ViJa·roGn ano Cu.=;i:.odian-:-who holc:s your.· Rt::lator in, un.J..aw:.::ul. confin- m~;:nt ana restraint Of his libei-Cf-inter"E:·SC 1 WOUlO have been COmmandE:'d and 0irecte0 his[him] to produce and have [had] delivered Applicat Bo~y's]-[thelPrisoner befo- r~ the trial Court instan~er-judge- whom ~he Writ's authority permits the ju~~e­

i:.o decide.whether the. le~al Custo6ian of interest is authorized. by law to detain his Prison~r-this A~plicant~Id ... ~But if,as· in.: this case sub judice,i:.hG rigth i~6- ivi6ual is not ser~ed he can not [have] addres~ed and answered the[ir]le9al ~U~bt-.

ions~with i:.hs[ir]. appropriate- lc~o.l p~2~&inys to have made thE[ir] ~~2ea~o.nce ••.. [see ~abeas cor~u& separate but attached memoraouro of law1it L~it~r~t~s ths same] not pro6uc~6 its- ,

reciept of its ~orms an6 com~laints form notice to A~p~icant arid c6nfirmo.~ion ... Wrose y~i:.,r•o ju~s0 can ~ossibly con~irler wheth~r or not Bridie D.Baker,et al, is-- hol6i nS:, Appl i can i::/Relc.tor ·uno cr · unl a w:uJ_ rQi(f,ot..a.ill'llryf~!ffti~:::-othe rw i se in i: r-u i:. h, the i: rial

have . been . iwmediatf..:~l:w :rEJiea.5e::d . . - recoras shm·J that i:hi.s Relator is unlawLully resci-ained of his libE:rty. ana could- ~ :fJt:'

2.mandamus. sworn\·l.t public fiduciary duty(s) to record and make· legal matters [t]here- with their,his,t,er Office(s) .and thus,re~nrd Relator's ~roperly-exe~uted ana- ~·

submitted documental Wd ts, a lenS~ with· Rel'ator' s memornnamn of f indi n':Js of fac-. ts,Rn6 conriusions of law.Inwhich,involve his liberty being eliminatin~ as tne main fa~tor that has de~rive~ him frnm gettins an~ recieuirrg justice and his - Equal protection of the Law -the fot1ndatinn of the Rule of Law-which is the - sourse ofgovernment power ,-insituted bj the Peo~le.for the peo~le and of the- People~the altimate·authority b£ cons~rrt to be prosecuted,only.upon a grand~~u-

ry Panel's returned True Bills of in~ictment,artd therefoie,anv unauthorize~-exe~

rcise of any- powers· ~OT cnnveyed by the People[Complainant violated,etcl is - not onlv unJust,unautorization of law,but a nullity and any Act or performance- or act don out-side the scope of law,is Usurpation of ~ower and void ... Thus, the Respondent'(s) failure to act as requested by this Petitioner-Relator is a failure to perform a minist~ri~l fucnction u~on colqrable claimed issues that- are none-waivable,[n]o~ forfieted,not even with Consent,under the facts of this Case sub judice.~.Whether the trial Court's habeas coroOs judyejor and its Cl- erks,et al.,th~y,he,she have denied ,as clearly condtructive in nature,Relator's only means of equatAbly availing himself of acce~s to tne Texas Courts inchief. State ex rel.Hill V.Pirtle,887 S.W.2d 921,926-27,& n6,9(Tex.Cr.App.l994) and - ' DeLeon V.District Clerk,Lynn County(Texas),l87 S.W.3d 473-474 & at n.l,5: "An [A]pplicant who files his application for habeas corpus relief h~s a Con~titutional right to access to the Courts" as well as a statutory right t6 file his application for habeas corpus with that district Clerk's Office;whose Office s

of .said Clerk has a statutory duty to accept both~·application-form and its.att- ached mem~randum of law as is presented in mater.ial c"ntents ... Which said duty is minist.erial.·as· the· judge's ,and when,' as in this instant case', said Clerk or and jUOCje refuse to file,docket-and pro_i?erlr ~rocess·this Relator's .,>leaain~s-­

fo~ ]Urisdiction,there is no other provision to compell said Cou~t's officer(s) to execute its duty in ac~bcd~nce with the laws of the State of Texas,and ther- byJCourt's Officers are denying Relator's clear and absolute riyhts to his rel-- ief sought.Inwhich the merits of his Constitutional violations claims are bey - ond dispute-a clear right of-his that necessitates that .which the law plainly - establisehes in that 6uty sworn to .by the Clerk(s) OR AND JUDGE to be perform - ed .. Such that there is no room for the[ir] exercise of discretion,but a mandato- ry duty~Id.at 174-75; New York Life Ins.Co.V.Brown,B4 F~3d 137,142,n.l0-12(5th Cir.l996);Cf.Ruiz V.Quat~rman,S04 F.3d 523,527(5th Cir.2007)(same),and Cf.Ex- Parte Clear,573 S.W.2d 224,suor~(Tex.Cr.App.l978),~n ~art: "A di~trict Court [judge] without having jurisdiction iinvoked ,can-not asume another JUd~e's properly exerc- . ised Jurisdiction over the Case.~to: conduct a hearing-"Id. I Thus,it is the trial Court's JUc)ge who possess sol1e authority/jurisdiction over-· 3.mandamus. this Relator/Complairiant ... Thus,in this Case at bar,the trial Court has not acted upbn the Relator's habeas coruus petition,and instead,has had its clee- r·k ( s k. or and Ms. Hernandez deviate from the correct procedure of due course of law,and have served the wrong and illegitimate Person-''a Linda Garcia,actiny- on the stationary of the District Aoorney to Harris County,of Texa6,as an ass- istant's capacity and said illegal intru~er,implies her submitted bas~less & improper-unlawful motion-brief,-was the STATE'S ORGINAL ANSWER on 2/12/15 and was pret}are6 by a Joshua Redelman-Intern.who neither had·prior trial Court's and its ~u69e's authorization to submit such bo~us and unfound distortion~ •. Then those illegal invited third uarty interveQers submitted another fraudul- ent proposal of facts and conclusions ~o law.Entitled: "STATE'S PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACTS AND CONCLSUIONS nF LAW"- Signed by Linda Garica on 2/16/15 ... The fact that the legal Respondent of in- terest has not even been served means this is andther case of fraud upon the - Courts.As in reality cited in U~s.V.Winestock,34d F~3d 200,207,& n.7(4th Cir.- 2003),citing DUNNS V.Cockrelli302 F.3d 491,492 &.~~1(5th Cir.2002)(Per Curiam), cert. denid, u.s. ,~23 s.ct.l208,154 L.Ed.2d 1013(2003):Boonie V.Elrod, 706 F.Supp.6j6,638~39(N~D.rll 1989)(same points in baseless motion practice);- Kn6~ V.Johnson,667 F.Supp.512,515-22(W.D.Mich.l987)(same),aff'd in partinbnt- ~art,977 F.2d 996,104(6th Cir.l992),cert.denied,ll3 s.ct.l4,15(1993),and see- for realistic accurances are nation wide in,Goka V.Babbitt,862 F.2d 646 1 650-52 (7th Cir-1998) ,Appellate Court seeking direct considerations o·f sanctions aga- nst Prison Officials lawyers,for such perpetrated fraud-upbn~the Courts[as in - this Case at bar]during the collateral review proceedings'~Id.And at Winestock,- 340 F.3d at 207,& n.7,supia .... Hence,this Relator states for the record that- he has no adequate remedy at or· in the law to ~ursue his re4uested relief he seeks-other than with [t]his application to appeal the Clerk(s) or JUd~e's or- Hernandez's a=tions or inactions ,this vunue or ~ihcle satisfys his showing- of his lack of habeas corpus relief is grounds for man~amus to issue against - the Responent(s) at fault for such unconstitutional deprivation of rights to- be enforced.Furthermore,only the Texas Legislature has the right to suspend - statutory laws.i.e.Texas Constitution~Article I,§28.DeLeon,supra.l87 S.W.3d at 475,& 1-:2 .. B) The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals justices have original juirsdiction to is- ·sue the[ir] Writ of Mandamus in this cause under Article 5,§5A of the Texas Con- sitution and Article 4.04 of the Texas Co~e. of Criminal Procedure.In this perso- nal proce~ure may comtemplate the the trial judge,an~ it's Court's employees - will.have knowledge of the specific changes to be made .and the correct process of service to order,and in the manner of making them,which is evidently legal- and proper under the law.Becuase the proper and le~al procedures under Article- 11.07,§ 3(b)(TCCP)-that requires services by the trial Court on the Warden of- the Mark Wavne Michael Prison Unit,in Anderson County Texas,as a man~atorv - 4.mannamus. command of law.and arty bther procedure applied was1as is1the result of purpor- ted illegal irregularities1thus.is v6id ab irtitio ... Also1the fact that ihe tri- al ·cour_t and its Officer ( s) HAD CHANGED ·the writ of habeas corpus to an Apt)ell- eartt's direct'appeal brief1with out JUrisdiction it/they exceeded his/her autho- rity(·s) by unilaterally deciding to change Rel~tor's want of habeas corp~s stat- us~and thus1codifed the unnecessary result of suspending.the writ of haheas cor-: pus. GUERRA .Wl;ARZA 1987 S .W. 2d 593 1 SUf.Jra·( Tex. Cr. ApJ? .1999 );Cf. The Texas Fair Defe- nse: act~eff.l/l/2002(SB 11§8)1§1 of SB 71id. C) Linda Garcia.as assuming to be the STATEiAND throuqh Joshua Redelman,has comffi- tted constructive misstatement of ~acts and law in her/th~ir b~seless brief.In- that Relatoe claimed more thari just a void sentence1but void trial Court's and it's Judge's Judgment is void1for ruling upon a fraudulent indictment un~er cau- se nu:8107741and Relator is not merely allegi~g ineffective assitance of counsel but Constructive. breach of fiduciary duty-by hi~ State Trial Court Appointed def- sel Counsel.In fact Garcia has falsified facts that Relator has not raised1an~

has intercept~d~conficated~and is holding hostaged Relator's actual plea~ings of the trial Court's and it's jtidge's judgment is void ab initio1for factually pro- ceeding to trial when its jurisdictional defect prbhibited that Court/jud~e from- entering any type of judgment.Muchless give authority to falsely imprison an in- nocent Man.as this Relator sub JUdice.Plus~these issues stated by Relator have - never been brought in an appeal J?reviously.Apart from Relator's issues out forth- in his .application and memorandum haviny claims that are not waivabl~ of forfiet- ed bv procedure errors.As they ar~ JUrisdiction and Constitutional issues prese- ed in ~cod faith.Consequently1Article ll.071§41does not bar Relator/Applicant ~

from presenting his ApJ?lication for a Writ of habeas corpus1ad teStificandum1and having it heard and acted on by both trial Court1]udge and this Appellate Court- 's Justices1because those issues are ~hallenges to the trial. Court's JUtidiction. AS such1it falls within the exceptions for subs~quent application of a writ of - habeas corpus .'rherefore 1 all the false statements of Ms ~Garcia, need to be .• s,trickeil from the record1hecause her amicus curiae intervention is illegal1and Relator's application for a writ of ·habeas cbrpus submitte~ four weeks ago1it's memorandum attache~ therEwith.be incoroorated by reference as set. out entirelv herein conn- ection with this mandamus application1aaainst an~ upon the trial Court's Judge - or an~ its clerk(s) OR AND M~.H~rnandez1for constructively denyinq Relator his riahts to have his 0rit of habeas carouse acted uuon the true issues he uresented. And thus.a clear abuse· of authoritv1which is a manifestly 'a manistrial'act in- nature.State ex.rel.Eidson V.Edwards,793 S.W.7d 117 & n.6-7infra(~ex.Ct.App.l990).

Wher~fore premises duly considere~,this Relator prays that this Appellate Court JUstices arartt this application and issue a writ of m~ndamus directing the said trial Cburt's ]udqe or its Clerk or and Leslie Hernandez1the respondent(s) in - this Case sub judice to serve the leqal Rescondent,Holding Relator under unlawful and illegal imprisonment.according to their correct Court procedures within 20- aa,•s of en~rv of this sai6 Cout'R Or~er,as to confirm the trial Court's judge's S.manaamus. oral ruling, 'if not documented on paperJand as to have establish~d Service up·· on Eddie D. Baker (or his dis iy ee/ suce(:;;sor) , a no thus, serv i c~::: of ·process executed- on th~· &ctual Pbrson,individual R86~odent of int~r8st,as t~~ Stat~'s ~ovenment's Official or Ayent· in .the rnanntr proscribeCi by afroementioned State of Texas law for se~vin0 s summons and or iik~ process on that Respondent(s)~And any othe~

m::l ~:f e~::~l::i:o ::~d t~:p:~~:::. ~o~:t ~:s ~~::~cos de om· anD in which ~~~l;: J fit,

Executec on...,. ;3d:: his Ci~~ / o~: /l&..""Tch 2.015, R":::S_t?e:ctfull1'" SubmiL:t0o ~~~~~~ifN ,Relator under a TDCJ~s account numb0r00876556,dn inhabitant ofthe Mark Wayne Michael Unit,2664 F.M.2054,Tennesse~ Colony Texas 75886-Located in AndErson County of the State of Texas- ... Affidavit of Certificate of SERVICE L/ia..li/1£;/ >}c//)lc.t/L Mavin Frank Sherman,do certify and affirm under penalty of oer)urv that all I have stated is True,correct,accurate and complete in the above and entitled,and cause.numb~~[810774],and these same st~ted tacts were sent too the trial Conr s R.o~odents, on t' 'll~ da7 of11W<12~l5, nursuan!!: Texas Civil Practice & Remedy Code,§l~2.001-132.0n3 . . . . .~~ ~~~ Relator-PrVo Se caoacitv . 3/3 ;;Je / ~~-

6.mandamus.