John Williams v. DART Transit

Opinion

XRE: 05-14-01303-CV

John E. Williams Fifth Court of appeals

Appellant 600 Commerce Street suit 200

5108 Brentwood stair rd apt 106 Dallas, TX 75202

Fort Worth, TX 76112

682-240-4618 X

jewiHiams676@gmail.com

Appellee { Dart Dallas area Transit n.j '-2

7K —

W

Appellant John E. Williams Motion for affirmative act

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT

Into court comes now the appellant as self-representation and will respectfully show the court the followings in the above styled cause.

(1) .Introduction

(a) Appellant is Mr. John E. Williams; Appellee is Dallas area rapid transit (Dart). (b) Appellant filed suit against Dart for personal injury in Tarrant County court at law #2. (c) This case is now in the fifth court of appeals it was transferred out ofTarrant County for Proper venue and the injuries from the event that occurred in Dallas County Dallas Texas.

1 of 4 Williams-John Appellee Dart transit

(2).Request And Reasoning This motion for affirmative act according to Americans' Amendments is not filed for the purposes ofdelay, but instead to avoid the valuable resources ofthis court to not be expended unnecessarily, and that justice may be done.

(3). Argument

By this motion, appellant ask the court to Allow affirmative act in this case that will allow for the parties to fully develop evidence, and ultimately be able to accurately evaluate, and analyze the parties' respective claims, and defenses in preparation for mediation/ or trial as Ahuman named inthe 13 thru 15th Amendments. I respect the constitution ofthis great country, the most liberal constitution in the world. Could I go to Washington without paying my homage and respect to that hero, George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, the emancipator ofour million slaves? I feel that my rights are infringed upon. IfIdiffered from the judge, it is but human. I feel you, gentlemen, will not do anything except that which is prompted by justice, truth and the law, as you know the law is but an expression oftruth, ofjustice, and of thought. The law demands truth and justice so that justice can be done. Surely you will allow affirmative act in this case to honor the appellant as a human.

(4). Facts

The sixth Amendment ofthe U.S. Constitution ensures the right to a speedy trial and public trial that is impartial in acriminal defense; however, the ninth Amendment Bill of Rights has generally been regarded by the courts as negating any expansion ofgovernmental power on account ofthe enumeration ofrights in the Constitution, but the Amendment has not been regarded as further limiting governmental power. The first through Eight Amendments address the means by which the federal government exercises its enumerated powers, while the ninth Amendment addresses a"great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of the government. Nevertheless, Appellant seeks the court to allow affirmative act of the US constitution be heard in regard ofthis case. Appellant is alegal born citizen ofthe U.S. of America and that ofAfrican descent with legal rights protected by the constitution ofthe U.S. of America and should be respected under the civil rights act to be recognized by the court as a human none alien in America Dallas Texas. Does the court respect the appellant as ahuman protected by any set ofthe constitutions, or the affirmative act? Are am Ithe appellant in fact a race less alien unidentified in Texas.

2of4

(5)

Finally, the sixth Amendment gives adefendant/ person the right to assistance ofcounsel for his orher defense, whether ornot defendant/ person can afford it. However, if a defendant/person is indigent counsel must be appointed because without counsel adefendant/ person is unlikely to receive a fair trial. Nevertheless, the ninth Amendment addresses a "great residuum" of rights that have not been "thrown into the hands of our government. Nevertheless, the Dred Scott decision was overturned from the nature of Dred Scottbeing a slave with no rights to a person respected by the laws ofthe land. The Dred Scott decision was overturned by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the constitution. Wherefore, the Supreme Court decision was issued on March 6, 1857. Delivered by Chief Justice Roger Taney, this opinion declared that slaves were not citizens of the United States and could not sue in Federal courts. Today a slave is not a word in the law, and has been overturned by the law since 1865 by the Supreme Court oflaw and justice.

Relief.

Appellant seeks relief in the form of the affirmative act due to the nature of this timely request if the court deems oral argument, or Appellant's Brief, or Mediation Order by law. Appellant seeks to know from the court, if the court respect the appellant as a person/ human protected by the 1964 civil rights act, and the affirmative act and any constitution are do the court view the appellant in fact as an alien with no rights protected by any constitution of American that of the Amendments of 1860- 2015?

Prayer.

Wherefore, premises considered, Appellant respectfully request that the court grant this motion for affirmative act.

Respectfully submitted,

John E. Williams

Pro,se

5108 Brentwood stair road apt 106

Fort Worth, Tx 76112

469-955-8139 or 682-240-4618

m

3of4 jewilliams676@gmail.com

I hereby certify that I caused a copy ofthe foregoing to be served on Appellee Legal Department Dart area Rapid Transit 1401 Pacific Avenue Dallas, Texas 75266-7255 Attorney Joycell Hollins In accord with the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure.

Dart Transit

Attorney Joycell Hollins Sr. Assistant General Counsel State Bar .No 24004493

Legal Department

1401 pacific Avenue

Dallas, Tx 75266-7255

Ph(214-749-3052

Email, ihollins@dart.org

RE.05-14-01303-CV

John E. Williams { Fifth Court of Appels

Appellant { 600 Commerce street suit 200 VS.

{ Dallas, Texas 75202

Appellee {

Dart Dallas area Transit

Order Granting Appellant's Motion for Civil right act of 1964 On this day came appellant John E. Williams motion for constitutional rights court has recognized the argument rose in this motion, and the merits of the same, is of the opinion that motion should in all things be granted.

It is ordered adjudged, and decreed that motion for judgment on the pleadings be granted.

day of •

Signed this day of_ 2015

#>f4

Judge Presiding,

s66£j6A4£-

Sbf4