John E. Rodarte, Sr. v. Ralph Lopez

Opinion

4TH COA NO.04-15-00012-CV Trial NO.2005-CI-18884 -/za-

JOHN E. RODARTE SR. IN THE COURT OF APPEALS Affiant,Appellant , Movant,In Propia Persona

VS FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS

BEXAR COUNTY,TEXAS,SHERIFF RALPH LOPEZ,ET AL Appellees SAN ANTONIO,TEXAS

RESPONSE TO FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS ORDER ,. MOTION TO WAIVE CHAP.14 DOCUMENTATION /" REQUIREMENTS,UNABLE TO COMPLY WITH FULL DOCUMENTATION,THAT CAN BE PROVIDED J ■

BY CLERKS OF THE RESPECTIVE COURTS QUESTION OF LAW

To The Honorable Court And Justices: i fe Now comes John E. Rodarte Sr-,in the above styled and numbered

cause of action. On this date of March 04,2015 completes this,his

document,and will show the following:

It is appellant's belief,that correct appeals brief has been submitted to this court for the above civil action. Appellant, maintains another civil action:John E. Rodarte Sr. Vs. TDFPS,cause number 2010-CI-12625,4TH COA 8 04-14-00922-CV,which would concern the very same provisions set forth with this court's own orders that appellant Rodarte Sr.,provide Civ.Prac-and Reni-Chap-14 doc umentation of other indignet court filinga and court act ions. Therefore,appellant Rodarte Sr.,requests,for the suspension of filing requirements for Appeal No.04-14-00922-CV as due by this court by March 16th,2015 for Appeal No.04-15-00012-CV and March 23, 2015 for Appeal No.04-14-00922-CV,being that the very identical requirements have been set forth by this court in both respective appeals- Thus,such pleading requirements,are motioned by appellant that they be waived/pursuant to T.R-A-P- Rule 2.

Appellant Rodarte Sr.,respect fully asks for leave of court,to allow

him to proceed in the best possible manner and fashion,that appellant

has come accustomed to,in that,appellant's pleadings,should be clear

and understandable. This is said as well,due to the fact that the

law library here at the Clements Unit,fails the parameters set by

The Access To Courts'rules and denies the appellant the necessary

legal material,to maintain a legal level playing field against the

appellees,who are afforded all of the legal material and legal assist

ance,that the appellant does not have the luxury that the appellees

have at their disposal. This is violative of due process and equal

protection of the laws,guaranteed by the 14th Amendment. 1. Once again for clarity purposes,appellant Rodarte Sr.,wishes,that

the application of the information provided herein,be applied as

well to the other appeal of John E. Rodarte Sr. Vs. Texas Department

Of Family And Protective Services,Appeal No -04-14-00922-CV.

It is also requested by appellant Rodarte Sr-,that the honorable

4TH COA, order its clerk,to obtain verification of the cases filed

by appellant,from the U-S- District Court,U-S- Court Of Appeals,For

The 5TH Circuit in Louisiana,U.S- Bankruptcy Court,both U.S. Courts

are located in San Antonio,Texas(Dist.Ct.& Bankruptcy Ct.),Bexar

County District Clerk,Donna Kay McKinney,Travis County,Texas Dist

rict Clerk,Third Court Of Appeals in Austin,Texas -

While there are two cause numbers that appellant may not be able

to provide this court with,the following cases are as follows:

U.S. District Court in San Antonio,Texas SA-14-CA-100-DAE which was

transferred from U.S. District Court in Austin,Texas,to which garnish

ment of Rodarte's Inmate Trust Fund Account was ordered,and still

being paid on,a balance of $ 270 - 00;there was a case filed in 2003 or

2004 in U.S. Dist.Ct-in San Antonio,Texas;5:07-cv-988-XR; SA-13-CA-1126;

for a total of four U.S. Dist-Ct - cases,al1 in San An tonio,except for

the one in Austin. The Austin case number is A-13-CV-1093-LY.

Next,the 5TH Circuit Ct- cases:14-50268 and 08-51253 for payment was

made in full. The U.S. Dist-Ct-case above,is correctly stated now as

5:07-cv-00988-XR~PMA. Appellant.wishes to inform the court,that the

following case numbers,were not manufactured out of thin air.

Potter County Dist.Clerk,for cause number,to which appellant is a

party to and representative thereof,Mo.98395-E or 098395-00E or

098395-E;Austin,Texas Dist-Clerk cause numbers are: D-1-GN-13-O01125

dismissed in part,renumbered in part,to .excuse me,severed to number

D-l-GN-13-003246 to the 345th Ct. from the 98th Ct.

Third Court Of Appeals in Austin,Texas is 03-13-00705-CV. I believe

the Judge Mary Roman portion,was the part that was severed,it may

very well be,that the portion against CPS may very well be active,

awaiting dismissal docket,hence the ruling for continued right to

litigate the case,due to the provisions set forth under Texas law

afforded by the Discovery Rule,as this court has been apprised of.

Therefore,it may very well under a question of law,become,should

it become necessary,that intervention be motioned for,by the Texas

Supreme Court and the U.S. Supreme Court-

2- The Austin civil case,00346 case*may have been dismissed by the

operation of law provisions,yet,it must be questioned under the

prinicples of being placed on the dismissal docket, to which,appell

ant has never received notice of-

The next cases,are out of San Antonio,Texas,should be residing at

the Bexar County District Clerk's Office under the followinq: 2003-

CR-2907; 2003-CR-6651 ; 2O1O-CI-14597 Beneficial Texas Inc.Vs. Rachel

A. Rodarte John E. Rodarte Sr-,2010-CI-03698 John E. Rodarte Sr.Vs-

Rosanna J. Patterson; John E. Rodarte Sr. Vs. The State Of Texas et

al,2011-CI-03434;2010 -CI-12625;2005-CI-18884 John E. Rodarte Sr. Vs.

Bexar County,Texas,Sheriff Ralph Lopez,et al;2O1O-CI-12625 Rodarte Sr.

Vs.Texas Department Of Family And Protective Services.

The following cases,are/can be found at the 4TH COA in San Antonio,

Texas. The following cases are: 04-04-00154-CV for a writ of mandamus

to which,in all reality,should have qranted the proper relief,but it

was overlooked;04-04-00673-CR a criminal appeal,to which,was not

argued as per Robinson Vs. State,16 S.W.3rd-808 and the favorable

Brady evidence found in the 1995 CPS file;04-10-00880-CV; 04-12-00211-

CV;04-14-00681-CV;04-14-00922-CV;and 04-15-00012-CV and a hot check

case against me,that should have been appealed,due to denial of my

request for a iury trial and request for a handwritinq expert,plus

all hot checks written,were written while I was detained at the Cq^c-f*

Bexar County Adult Detention Center, but who v;oulc ]. is ten to me,all /'3tf/C HC-otlK Co. that had to be done was compare the dates on the checks and my de-

tainment on April 17,2003 to October 29,2004,should suffice,that I

was wrongfully charqed and illeqally misrepresented by counsel-

One last issue,is cause no.14-0388 in the Texas Supreme Court. It

has to arqued under questions of law,is it customary,for the courts

to misapply constitutional laws,statutes,codes,etc? Under a question

of law,when a case has been set for "| ury trial,can such a case,qo

against a -judqe's court order, placing a case on the iurv docket,and

hearinq motions to dismiss,thus qoinq aqainst a iudqe's order?

This is further made argueable,in that,while a case has been placed

on the jury docket,to which this has been done twice,deny a constit

utional riyht to a trial by iury,especially when the cases exhibiting

favorable decisions in the appellate courts and Texas Supreme Ct-,in

that certain issues,concerninq notice,and failing to give notice,are

issues that must be resolved by a "jury.

3. Appellant Rodarte £r. ,believes that he has provided sufficient

cause numbers for the honorable 4TH COA,to show that appellant has

complied with documentation of his filings in other courts in this

documentation or document. This is offered pursuant to Government

Code,311.Oil(a),should satisfy this court's application of docu mentation ' .

In the case that the word and application of documentation,does

for some reason not satisfy this court,then,blame must be placed where blame must be placed. Appellant,due to not wantinq to divulge

hi;; hard copies that contain evidence of the court cases listed

above,then let the blame fall where it should. It may appear that

the clerk of this court,will not obtain verification of the cases

listed,therefore,make it possible for this court to dismiss for

non-compliance by the appellant,even thouqh appellant has provided

the court with the necessary cause numbers,that should satisfy the

requirements of evidence,only too easy to dismiss appellant's claims.

This is further evident,due to this prison's unit law library staff concerning indigent supplies- It seems that the indiqent supply staff

are retaliate against appellant for filinq qrievances aqainst certain

officers,by allowing appellant only three business envelopes,when he

always requests five envelopes.

What this does is,stall the appellant's attempt in submittinq to

the other clerks of the courts,notice and request for hard copy doc

umentation, in order to fully provide this court with'documentation'

and more evidene,that appellant is tryinq the best he can do,only

if the circumstances were more readily available without interference.

It! is quite evident, that appellant had to submit the listed filings its ;just that,had not an illegal "judgement of conviction been imposed

upon hinwappellant's 'outside interests'would not have had to become

subi ■ icted to the necessity of a court forum -

This next passaqe,is not intended to point finqers or lay blame,

but if it should feel this way,then this must be the case. Appellant

will beqin with the newly appointed D-A. Mr- Lahood. Now,if appellant

is incorrect,then appellant will offer his sincerest apoloqy to Mr. Lahood. There

was a law firm,that employed an attorney by the name of Lahood,I have

no information to ensure that,that Mr- Lahood is the same person as

the D.A. Anyway,the appellant had hired a Mr. Bias Delqado,to rep

resent appellant in a divorce,to which such shoddy representation

caused appellant to fall suspect to too many questionable issues,

that ^ould include now. 4. U thia shoddines and questionable handling of appellants legal proceedings,that can only offer one explanation,that the evidence of said poor worksmanship,is ju.t too great,and appellant Rodarte Sr.,has had to take the brunt of such poor professional " performance all by himself. This goes on to include the very same courts as a whole,who qo to extren.es to defend such shoddy profess ionals. Once again,the proof is evident,its in the records. Appellant,does not know why Mr. Lahood dismissed a number of Assistant D-A.'s,and appellant does not know if Crystal Chandler and Earnest MoClure are one or two of the attorneys dismissed,the appellant,would like to know the reasons why such dismissals took place-

When the case sites,whether Texas Southwestern Reporter,Federal Reporter,Supreme Court Reporter,as they are written,show within said paqes of the above referenced books,show that causes,as filed by appellant,including now,that should qarner reinstatement of the two current cases under appeal,only because of the questionable dismissals,would not have to be subieoted to appeal,had said cases been held properly before a -jury and proper law applied,by those who are in the know and licensed in this state,should have never had allowed such misapplications to qo as far as they have,yet here we are-

Under a question of law,beinq that a case,being placed on the jury docket,cannot be remove from the docket,any and all questions,must be submitted to the jury,not another bench trial or hearings- The iudqes and attorneys know this,not without agreement from the app ellant,this was done twice in appellant's iniury case,to which for sonie reason,the clerks keep leaving out the defendant Bexar County from the title of cause 2005-CI-18884 and only stating Sheriff Ralph Lopez,et al.

When appellant,had to underqo beinq subjected to a criminal case a case to which this submission does not pertain to,yet was impro perly addressed in this court,as then,Mr.Langlois should have done the same for this appellant,as he did in the case of Robinson Vs. State,16 S.W.3rd-S08 in light of the litigated 1995 CPS file,a file that should have made it to appellant's criminal trial,to which this submission to this court now has before it,shows that appellant did not harm his children,and shows that the state along with the agency CPS,denied appellant's sons the lawful constitutional protections,and was concealed. 5. As the denial to favorable Brady Material,such as the 1995 CPS fi|Le and the 1995 divorce f i le, 1995-CI-05393 would have shown in appellant's criminal trial,is that under Texas law,once an issue

has been litigated concerninq the very same issues and claims as in the previous proceedinq,whether civil or criminal.cannot be lit igated aqainst the same parties aqain,wether in privity,or throuqh the statefD.A.),usinq the same person in the previous proceedinq, that resulted by a final iudqement in a competent court. It is the response by Judqe Mary Roman,that since the D.A. did not hav|e such 1995 evidence in its possession, i t did not violate Brady- As it has been articulated in Auters Vs.US,632 F.2nd.478 alonq with

Brady Vs .Maryland , 83 S . Ct. 1189 , McCoy Vs. Hernandez , 203 F-3rd..>61,

Garcia Vs.State,308 S.W.3rd.62,qoes to show that the officers of the

state grossly failed to investiqate,and certain officers of the state

either overlooked or looked the other way when said issues were clear

and a ministerial duty,should have cauqht someone's eye,yet the qross overlookinq was the easier road to take-

So does all of this have to do with anything,other than why this

is havinq to be plead to this court? Plenty,aqain,it is the overlook

inq of important matters that are of great concern,not iust tc the

appellant,but to his sons iust as well and equally.

What happened to appellant,it can be said iust the same for his

sons,John Jr.and Hawke,due to the fact,that such 'shoddiness of pro

fessionalism by the officers of the State,denied appellant his riqht

to go home,have his children removed from where they were court ordered

to a,tay,in an abusive home, that CPS should have done the riqht thing,

but alas,it was easier to do the wronq thing and conceal it. This

issue of concealment,has already been brought to the attention of this

court,now appellant is waitinq for this court to do the riqht thinq,

and must be questioned,if this court will even do the riqht thinq, I and allow for reinstatement of the cases plead to,simply because,the

allowance of such a lonq period of time,without any corrective mea

sures, until now,would allow a wronq to continue without any recourse

or findinq responsible the riqhtful parties,iust because they are

offi ers of the State,and hide and conceal themselves under the cloak

of vereiqn immunity and not be held liable.

6. Under a question of law,under the equal protection of the law

clause of the 14th Amendment,is it quite possible to the extent,

that appellant would have been able to pay the costs and fees to

at least some extent,had appellant been in his liberty?

It would appear,that the officers of the State and court,are

subiectinq the appellant,to 'iumpinq throuqh hoops' iust so appellant

will either qet tired of so much paper pushinq,or iust so the court

will have an excuse,in which to dismiss the cases,iust because there

is a law,a statute , under Civ.Prac.and Rein . Chap . 14 , which , wi thout ever

havjinq meritful litiqation ever reach a courtroom, iust because such

litiqation has been labeled inmate litiqation,and the excuse is that an inmate is filing any kind of lawsuit iust because the court 'thinks'

such litiqation is frivolous,thus qivinq meritful cases,usually that

concern litiqation aqainst the State or its officials,easy to dismiss thus,under a question of law,is said statute,Chap - 14 unconstitutional?

Because it denies a person,iust because he or she is labeled an in mate? Does this further,under a question of law,deserve further scru

tiny,as discrimination by beinq an inmate? Does this fall under the 1prpfilinq'due to race or qender,iust because a person is an inmate? Therefore,does this violate a person's Bill Of Riqhts1 iust because

they are incarcerated? Does such litiqation and application of Chap.

14,(3eny or violate a person's riqht to equal protection of the laws?

Just because a person is indiqent? This is iust too much,to be able to deny a case,iust because it fall under a statute,and will never allow a case to have its day in court before a iury as afforded by law Texas or U.S. or otherwise. Such,would implicate,that there are other U.S. Constitutional denials

at play iust as well. This issue of Brady material,qoes on to include evaluations by a

Carol Albert there in San Antonio,that,is evidence that should have

made to appellant's criminal trial and did not. It is therefore now beinq requested,for the proper furtherance of the case aqainst CPS

and show willful witholdinq and concealment of evidence,that the appellant did not harm his sons,that appellant's sons were beinq abused physically and sexually by someone other than the appellant

that the State did nothinq about it when it concerned appellant's

son; ,or the appellant,to show favorable evidence,qo home and love

his children as the 14th Amendment protects the parent-child relation- shit/something that,it would appear the officers involved in matter have no worldly idea. 7. Respectftjri^y]Submitted CONCLUSION

Appellant Rodarte Sr-,only wishes that the law be applied faithfully in correctinq some qross injustices done aqainst his family, and to appellant. These are concerns,that cannot be left to a iudqe anymore, let the true triers of fact,be the iudqes here on lawsuits aqainst those,that are thouqht to protect and serve the community and do not. That those that protect and serve/do not protect and serve the comm unity,but only serve themselves,otherwise,why are there Housebills beinq passed,that raise an issue of third party interests,especially a iudqe? These interests,do not only apply to iust a iudqe,but to all of those persons who are a part of the iudqe,arm extensions of the State,who must be held accountable always for their actions,iust like anyone else - Appellant asks,that due to the constraints placed upon him by the law library,by not issuinq sufficient envelopes,in which to send notice and requests to clerks of other courts,it is asked of this court and Mr.Nicolas A. Lahood,that it allow appellant to satisfy this court's requirement for hard copy documentation. It is further requested by appellant,of Mr.Lahood,to serve copy of this! document to Mr- Clarkson F- Brown,A.D.A- for Bexar County,and Jason T. Contreras,Assistant Attorney General- Appellant did not make these problems to impose them upon the defendants or their counsel,all that is asked,that the records be reviewed with a fine toothed comb,with an undivided application of the law as the evidence presents itself. That the divorce documents be brouqht before this court,the evaluations done by Carol Albert,the 1995 CPS investiqation that a jury may be better suited for their evaluation,not a iudqe or panel of iudqes,too much room for a biased iudqement,even thouqh the |law shows that this will not be the case, experirence, corruption, other interests,concealment,biases,inteqrity of the court,can only be maintained throuqh a iury trial,court's upto this point when it comes to the children of appellant and the appellant, said court's have been severely compromised,there is no trust in such a system. Appellant,has sufficiently provided Dist.Clk.necessary incHqent info for an appellate record. This court is iust lookinq for/ny avenue in which to dismiss leqitimate cases aqainst Sinos its ovn constituents

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

This is to certify,that a true and correct copy of this foreqoinc;

docunent,has been forwarded to Mr. Nicolas A. Lahood,District Attorney

For 3exar County,Texas 101 West Nueva St.,Suite 370 San Antonio,Texas

78205 by first class mail-

ecuted On This March 04,2015 Resp ly Done,

J.R./i.r. 03/04/2015 O moo a <=»

tr1 T Cj

Q > O C > H r1 r- H-

■" .D 3 > M (C

o 11

■

01 a ■

o o c C"

n o r 0 o O ■-ft c o C" en r-.

0) r

O n

m 01 •D d T3

■ i fD

I 0J

o O O