Michael Thomas Paul v. Greg Abbot Attorney General for the State of Texas
Opinion
CAUSE: 2001-CI-16843 ^ <\
MICHAEL THOMAS PAUL (PLAINTIFF) § IN THE DISTRICT COURr. o c
VS § # 225 U. "-
GREG AB30T ATTORNEY GENERAL § ' "~ FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS (DEFENDANT) § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DISTRICT COURT'S ATTORNIES
CLAIM OF NON INDIGENCY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FRIVILOUS APPEAL
pLAINTIFF is pro se. The hearing set and heard in presiding court Bexar County on _.
December 5th, 2014 was requested by DINAH GAINES, Chief Staff Attorney, Bexar^ S ~<7£ County Civil District Courts as a malicious filing in an attempt to silence this cait^oiice m :~o and for all. Let it be known that respondents first attorney RANDOLPH V. GONfZ^LEZ £ ^ =■'; - SBN:08131200 appeared October 17 and filed a motion for continuance statingjjiat no s» '■€: -i- notice had been given per Tex. R. Civ. P. 21 and that he needed more time to pre£&re im ^p _■'_
answer .since he was unfamiliar with the particulars of the filed suit. Plaintiff will show ca : :■
E-file and E-serve confirmation on October 06. 2014 to Attorney General who sent Mr.
GONZALEZ because he had represented the defendant in Justice Court, Comal County.
Texas on September 20th, 2014 regarding this exact issue. Plaintiff never having had to
plea a civil case and who had not been in a civil courtr since 2002 was unfamiliar with
the TexasRules of Civil Procedure when he filed in small claims court for S10.000 plus
damages and other relief as the court would see fit. Because there was a lack of
concurrent inherent jurisdiction the Justice slated she was not eligible to make any
rulings and had to grant the defendants motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Again
being a novice Propia Persona litigant Plaintiff was unaware regarding the legalese
language when the judge granted the motion with prejudice vs. no prejudice, or he would
ha\e objected to the motion. Plaintiff stopped at the clerks office before leaving the
facility as to enquire of the Judge if he needed to file in Bexar County which was the
correct court having jurisdiction or was an appeal necessary first. The clerk returned and
stated that the judge said if he wanted to file an appeal it must be done within 10 days page 1 of 8 and he was freeto make his own decision since they could not give legal advice. Plaintiff
believing that he just needed to file in the proper court that retains jurisdiction in family
court cases as dedicated by the Judicial Court System in TEXAS and the states
constatulion designating the 225th of Bexar county as a family court and was the
originating court being the court of inherant and concurrent jurisdiction making it the
only court allowed to hear pleadings regarding this cause. Plaintiff attempted to efilc the
ncessarydocumentation to reopen the initial cause which is the subject of this suit but
was deniedby the clerks office on more than one occasion. The First time was told that
this cause isclosed and that a new affidavit of Indigency had to be submitted to file in
original cause. Plaintiff filed in person and submitted new affidavits of inability to pay
court costs stamped September 22. 2014 with two stamped copies sent for service of
notice by the Sheriff and set the matter for hearing October 5th. The next afternoon the
Plaintiff receives an email from the district clerks office stating that the petition
submitted had nothing to do with the original divorce and it was being issued a new
cause number. Plaintiff replied to the email stating that the petition was everything to do
regarding thedivorce proceeding and if the clerks office attempted to bypass the record
then plaintiffwould be forced to report the issue for a judicial review. October 05th.
2014 healing in presiding was scheduled when initial filing was done September, 22.
2014. Plaintiff wasnot on the docket for the case he filed into but instead had received a
new case number from the clerks office and was asked if he could show service to the
opposing party. Plaintiff didn't receive the return of service from the sheriff as required
so he asked for the courts leave to return to the District Clerk who was to effect service
where he was told that since the cause number was a new one he would need to refile
requests for service under the new number as the notices were not served. Plintiff
enquired to the clerk he sent the reply email to on September 23 and was told by the clerk
that he was told to do it. Plaintiff demanded the filing be placed into the original cause
and had to complete another setof request for service which was a duplicate to what was
filed on September 22, 2014. Plaintiff returned to presiding court and made a formal
complaint to the court clerk regarding the intentional misfiling of his petition and
requests for service and asked if the judge would sec him. Because the presiding judge
was still on the bench and hadoverheard the conversation she agreed to hear from the
plaintiff but stated she could make no ruleings regarding the petition for temporary
injunction and declaratory relief without showing proof of service.
page 2 of 8
After reading the petition and seeing the attached exhibits as evidence regarding the petition for declaratory relief and temporary injunction the presiding judge stated that theplaintiff should go out front and file a selling for a new dale. Plaintiff did as
insiructedand was giving the earliest date October 17. that the court was hearing newly
docketed pleas then proceeded to give notice tothe defense regarding the new date.
There has been multiple attempts to keep this case from being justly adjudicated and
plaintiff contends that the district clerks office including the staffattorney are corrupt and
have violated procedures and even laws regarding the theft of Federal Benefits in excess
of $11.600 from plaintiffs Social Security Disability. Plaintiff learned through the staff
attorney before she knew whom he was. that there had been no filings in the original case
since the divorce decree of May 2002. Upon learning this information plaintiff began to
suspect that there was more than just the intentional filing of a civil judgment claiming he
owed $5,140.00 to the state and it appeared on his credit reports causing emotional
distress, pain and suffering and his public image was so defamed to make him appear as a
DEAD BEAT DAD for not paying his child support as ordered by the court. The only
problem with that is a Termination Order relinquishing the parent child relalionshipwith
his daughter that ordered ex partc in December of 2004 ending with "no other relief so
ordered." Had the plaintiff been so behind in his support to the child it would have been
pleaded heavily by the state and a request for an order for contempt to compel payment
issued. Yet the state made no claims and the Oblige also made no claims as to not
receiving support payments. Then 6 months after the termination the US Social Security
Administration receives a second writ for withholding for garnishment of wages that
continue through 2008 when plaintiff finally learns that the withholding was being paid
to the state of Texas and not his son in California, accumulating to $11,600 as reported
by an audit he initiated after providing the order to the administration from the December
2004 termination which slopped the garnishments administratively from further
payment. Plaintiff then received a court stamped judgment for an additional $5140.00
lien and was issued against REAL property had the plaintiff had any. Plaintiff
telephoned the District clerk and stated that he owed nothing and that he was a victim of theft by deception and that the lien was not dully owed. The clerkstated that he needed to
contact the attorney generals office directly which is what he didand was immediately
told that they wouldconducl an internal investigation and would get back with him. But
more than likely the money had been paid to the oblige, plaintiffs ex wife and that if that were the case then he would need to take her to court to recover his money.
page 3 of 8
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
CAUSE: 2001-CI-16843 ^ <\
MICHAEL THOMAS PAUL (PLAINTIFF) § IN THE DISTRICT COURr. o c
VS § # 225 U. "-
GREG AB30T ATTORNEY GENERAL § ' "~ FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS (DEFENDANT) § BEXAR COUNTY, TEXAS
PLAINTIFF'S ANSWER TO DISTRICT COURT'S ATTORNIES
CLAIM OF NON INDIGENCY OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE FRIVILOUS APPEAL
pLAINTIFF is pro se. The hearing set and heard in presiding court Bexar County on _.
December 5th, 2014 was requested by DINAH GAINES, Chief Staff Attorney, Bexar^ S ~<7£ County Civil District Courts as a malicious filing in an attempt to silence this cait^oiice m :~o and for all. Let it be known that respondents first attorney RANDOLPH V. GONfZ^LEZ £ ^ =■'; - SBN:08131200 appeared October 17 and filed a motion for continuance statingjjiat no s» '■€: -i- notice had been given per Tex. R. Civ. P. 21 and that he needed more time to pre£&re im ^p _■'_
answer .since he was unfamiliar with the particulars of the filed suit. Plaintiff will show ca : :■
E-file and E-serve confirmation on October 06. 2014 to Attorney General who sent Mr.
GONZALEZ because he had represented the defendant in Justice Court, Comal County.
Texas on September 20th, 2014 regarding this exact issue. Plaintiff never having had to
plea a civil case and who had not been in a civil courtr since 2002 was unfamiliar with
the TexasRules of Civil Procedure when he filed in small claims court for S10.000 plus
damages and other relief as the court would see fit. Because there was a lack of
concurrent inherent jurisdiction the Justice slated she was not eligible to make any
rulings and had to grant the defendants motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction. Again
being a novice Propia Persona litigant Plaintiff was unaware regarding the legalese
language when the judge granted the motion with prejudice vs. no prejudice, or he would
ha\e objected to the motion. Plaintiff stopped at the clerks office before leaving the
facility as to enquire of the Judge if he needed to file in Bexar County which was the
correct court having jurisdiction or was an appeal necessary first. The clerk returned and
stated that the judge said if he wanted to file an appeal it must be done within 10 days page 1 of 8 and he was freeto make his own decision since they could not give legal advice. Plaintiff
believing that he just needed to file in the proper court that retains jurisdiction in family
court cases as dedicated by the Judicial Court System in TEXAS and the states
constatulion designating the 225th of Bexar county as a family court and was the
originating court being the court of inherant and concurrent jurisdiction making it the
only court allowed to hear pleadings regarding this cause. Plaintiff attempted to efilc the
ncessarydocumentation to reopen the initial cause which is the subject of this suit but
was deniedby the clerks office on more than one occasion. The First time was told that
this cause isclosed and that a new affidavit of Indigency had to be submitted to file in
original cause. Plaintiff filed in person and submitted new affidavits of inability to pay
court costs stamped September 22. 2014 with two stamped copies sent for service of
notice by the Sheriff and set the matter for hearing October 5th. The next afternoon the
Plaintiff receives an email from the district clerks office stating that the petition
submitted had nothing to do with the original divorce and it was being issued a new
cause number. Plaintiff replied to the email stating that the petition was everything to do
regarding thedivorce proceeding and if the clerks office attempted to bypass the record
then plaintiffwould be forced to report the issue for a judicial review. October 05th.
2014 healing in presiding was scheduled when initial filing was done September, 22.
2014. Plaintiff wasnot on the docket for the case he filed into but instead had received a
new case number from the clerks office and was asked if he could show service to the
opposing party. Plaintiff didn't receive the return of service from the sheriff as required
so he asked for the courts leave to return to the District Clerk who was to effect service
where he was told that since the cause number was a new one he would need to refile
requests for service under the new number as the notices were not served. Plintiff
enquired to the clerk he sent the reply email to on September 23 and was told by the clerk
that he was told to do it. Plaintiff demanded the filing be placed into the original cause
and had to complete another setof request for service which was a duplicate to what was
filed on September 22, 2014. Plaintiff returned to presiding court and made a formal
complaint to the court clerk regarding the intentional misfiling of his petition and
requests for service and asked if the judge would sec him. Because the presiding judge
was still on the bench and hadoverheard the conversation she agreed to hear from the
plaintiff but stated she could make no ruleings regarding the petition for temporary
injunction and declaratory relief without showing proof of service.
page 2 of 8
After reading the petition and seeing the attached exhibits as evidence regarding the petition for declaratory relief and temporary injunction the presiding judge stated that theplaintiff should go out front and file a selling for a new dale. Plaintiff did as
insiructedand was giving the earliest date October 17. that the court was hearing newly
docketed pleas then proceeded to give notice tothe defense regarding the new date.
There has been multiple attempts to keep this case from being justly adjudicated and
plaintiff contends that the district clerks office including the staffattorney are corrupt and
have violated procedures and even laws regarding the theft of Federal Benefits in excess
of $11.600 from plaintiffs Social Security Disability. Plaintiff learned through the staff
attorney before she knew whom he was. that there had been no filings in the original case
since the divorce decree of May 2002. Upon learning this information plaintiff began to
suspect that there was more than just the intentional filing of a civil judgment claiming he
owed $5,140.00 to the state and it appeared on his credit reports causing emotional
distress, pain and suffering and his public image was so defamed to make him appear as a
DEAD BEAT DAD for not paying his child support as ordered by the court. The only
problem with that is a Termination Order relinquishing the parent child relalionshipwith
his daughter that ordered ex partc in December of 2004 ending with "no other relief so
ordered." Had the plaintiff been so behind in his support to the child it would have been
pleaded heavily by the state and a request for an order for contempt to compel payment
issued. Yet the state made no claims and the Oblige also made no claims as to not
receiving support payments. Then 6 months after the termination the US Social Security
Administration receives a second writ for withholding for garnishment of wages that
continue through 2008 when plaintiff finally learns that the withholding was being paid
to the state of Texas and not his son in California, accumulating to $11,600 as reported
by an audit he initiated after providing the order to the administration from the December
2004 termination which slopped the garnishments administratively from further
payment. Plaintiff then received a court stamped judgment for an additional $5140.00
lien and was issued against REAL property had the plaintiff had any. Plaintiff
telephoned the District clerk and stated that he owed nothing and that he was a victim of theft by deception and that the lien was not dully owed. The clerkstated that he needed to
contact the attorney generals office directly which is what he didand was immediately
told that they wouldconducl an internal investigation and would get back with him. But
more than likely the money had been paid to the oblige, plaintiffs ex wife and that if that were the case then he would need to take her to court to recover his money.
page 3 of 8
Every time plaintiff would call Austin to the office of the attorney general to inquire of
the investigation he was placed on hold lor 15 io twenty minutes before anyone would
reply and their answer was always we slill are doing an investigation but rest assured as
soon as we determine what has happened you will be the first to know. Then in 2013
Plaintiff learns that the civiljudgment had been reported to all three major credit bureaus
and when he would inquire they would always state that they had verified the claim and
he owed it. Plaintiff requested investigations to the factual legitimacy of the lien but was
never given any reply. Then in 2014 when il was still appearing on his credit reports,
plaintiff gave written notice to cure the defect or face civil penalty upon which the
investigations concluded that there was an error and the civil judgments were deleted.
Plaintiff states Judgments as plurai since there was also a fraudulent claim from Salano
County California showing as receiving payments for child support and even had
claimed some as 30-60-90 late but the account was showing paid and current. That is
why Plaintiff thought the payments were lor his son in California. The reporting bureau
has sent a letter showingcomplcte deletion of these false claims.
It is at this point in time that plaintiff filed formally with the Attorney Generals Chief
Ombudsman requesting relief to have what was removed from him returned. No
statements of suit seeking extra damages just return what was wrongfully taken. Since
the Office of the attorney general Chief Ombudsman is to initiate the report and contact
the reporting party every quarter until final resolution and no administrative claim can be
made that the investigation is completed and close the complaint which is required by the
Texas Government code. Plaintiff learned through the district clerks new online eservice
thai the court record showed 5 entries between 2003 and 2008 and plaintiff stated that no notice had been given per Tex. R. Civ. P. 21 not once but twice regarding the entries in the clerks database as to appear that orders were entered by a judge. Plaintiff has since learned in the filing of this petition that the entries are just that. Entries with no
supporting documentation or actual orders issued by a district judge and the first was a
change in place of payment and payee from 2003 which led plaintiff to believe the entire time that the money was redirected to someone other than the original oblige and here he
was being told up until September that he needed to try and get it from the oblige.
page 4 of 8
The OAG's office of child support enforcmcm and Mary Morton and her representing
lawyer Mr. Randolph V. Gon/.alcs SBN 08131200 filed their answer in Justice court
stating that his only recourse is to sue the oblige as he has non other, because they didn't have his money.
Between the intentional deceptive tricks and tactics to keep plaintiff from recovering his
money that was illegally seized and entries in the clerks database that have no basis in
fact other than they just appeared 2 years ago when they weren't' there the year before.
And a payment record given lo plaintiff by the assistant attorney general Randolph
Gonzalez which states that only $7,462.89 was ever owed and collected by the OAG
child support enforcement division is just another of the non truthes entered by the office
ofthe attorney general in this cause especially since there was an official audit by the
Social Security Administration and subsequent stamped copy of payments from local
officeclearly showing $1 L600.00 makes the entry of a fraudulent court document filed
which constitutes acommission of a crime since the supposed judgment with lien was aginst real property in the state.
It is at this point in time where plaintiff demands a judicial review of the district clerks office of Bexar County Texas and there conspiracy to hide the truth and to continuously
harass the plaintiff and file against a known physically disabled and indigent citizen
claiming he is not indigent toprotect those that knowingly forged the electronic database.
Plaintiff further request sanctions against the District Court Attorney as well as sanctions against the office of the attorney generals which has and continues to file mis statements of fact and will even have an assistant attorney general commit perjury in open court to delay the hearing so a new motion can be filed and heard before a retired comptroler ofthe State who ignores facts, has no record before him and doesn't recognize case law such as the stripping doctrine. Pending filed motions that needed to be addressed were summerily over ruled before the defendants ineligible claim to sovereign immunity which was pleaded claiming there was never a authorization nor agreement by the state lo waive thier immunity and thus granted the dismissal of plaintifs claims with perjudice and stating that this case has been fully adjudicated and can not be heard again even though the state legislature has deemed the only reason for suit against the individual in his capacity as an employee ofthe state. The only real motion for dismissal is the one not attempted for limitations. But Plaintiff has been sent a demand for payment from an automobile accident he had last June 5 where the guard rail and cable was damaged when his automible struck the
page 5 of 8
center devider on loop 1604 and lh 35 interchange totaling his 2012 K.IA and leaving him no transportation. The Department of Motor Vehicles demanded payment for said obligation and sent him a demand for payment letter. Fortunatly the plaintiff had comprehensive and collission insurance which not only replaced his totaled vehicle but also paid the demand from the state which stated that there is no limitations to an obligation owed under Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code chapter 16 16.061 'Rights not Barred1.
Wherefore the Sovereign state assumes a position when an obligation is due: Plaintiff now assumes that same position as afforded the sovereign since the plaintiff is sovereign himself least a document can be produced by the State which clearly denies the plaintiff the right to soverignity.
Under this premis of the same position as the state regarding an obligation to return said obligation owed for a claim of damage to the sovereign. Plaintiff seeks return of sovereign's obligation to the plaintiff since there is nothing in the laws of texas that clearly states that the sovereign can keep property which clearly belongs to another.
The plaintiff would pray this court to make all orders sought for the futherance of justice. And to notify all those that would use the power of this court to take advantage of others through trickery and deception presented to this honerable court, that if coughl they will pay a heavy price.
Pleader attests that the statements made in this affadavit are truthful and accurate to the best of his knowledge and attests to the same here on.
Sworn this day 20th December 2014 in the county of Comal.
Michael Thomas Pau Propia Persona 9123 Easy Street San Antonio, Tex 78266 (210)294-4533
page 6 of 8
NOTICE. THIS FORM CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA.
Cause Number: 2001-CI-16843
„ ... In Ihe ••■■•-■ ■' Pelilioner/ Plaintiff MICHAEL THOMAS PAUL J25TH _ 0 District Court ■ ■ ~ •,..--::. q County Court at Law n Justice of the Peace
Doleodant GREG ABBOTT ATTORNEY GENERAL
Respondent/ FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS ....BJ1XAR. County. Twos
Plaintiffs Amended Affidavit of Indigency for APPEAL (Request to Not Pay Court Fees)
:>** :ims w: !o ask trie cuur1 'lot to Y«u nw.si eimei ' • stye, this 'orm in You can be prosecuted if you lie on ■■'wge *cu ('■•• cou'i fees1 'iis 'crm is front of j no'ary puul.r or 2; si:i:i 'His this form. aisu calieii <ti 'Vfidavit o' Inability to form am sign and attach a completed ; M0 court may or may no! approve this Pay Co-..r; Cusis" or a 'Paupers Oatf "Unsvto:r. Declaration' form. By req'uss! 10 not ooy court 'ees rh«A.'.;urr You can only i>se Shis fonri if. (1) you signing in fron! of ;j inj'.ary. you suvar :t,nv Jr.-e, y0,, |O arrive' (|iiOS'.!0'^ .iiv ;;.::;;« fe-i-'-s becai;sc yo.i art «'i'J#« o.if.': :na: !i«: inlormaiion ^t3OL-1 your financos a; a hearmc. A: :ii«M v ,.:-j yoi en-', t pay nourt foes jtrovirifin 'f. Ii.o .in;! i-ursn By !Ms, deaniHj you will hove lo present ' -id !'ifiv-r-ai-..a you g;vii on llvs forf .'-.itji'iii!! .iii<! attnr.r.m-.j ;«i Uriswoci ovidvnoi1 ■,•:> the itidqp of your inco^i'? •;■'.;•:» bi" ■:''•> " "o:rt!l«li! true anri Osci.-ir.vio'i 'onr> vim ..'er.'.-./c- j'io'c .-jsir expenses !t. [jrr.vp'-iar v.i. *iflvf--X11 .^•:J';va'SL»;t;.-/i1.a!tr.t.r:{;imJitio'» .oiHy :■;. ^sy "ourt fees ri'O.'IOK! >S ;.';(C- ?ilx.(i (if'SCl
® The person who signed this affidavit appeared, in porson, before me, the undersigned notary, and stated under oath:
"My name is MICHAEL THOMAS PAUL My phone number is ( 2 ro ) 294 -4533 -My mailing address is 9123_EASY STREEJ_ SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78266 "My email address is MTP73H9@HOTMAIL.COM i am above me age of eighteen (18) years, and I am fully competent to make this affidavit. I am unable to pay court costs The nature and amount cf rny income, resources, debls. and expenses are described in this form.
•: ■ '.. .'■..• "I. i.y-., .,t.!f.i ;■■:*;■ .;■:><-& j.V.-..••.-••»;.•.• Cf. i ■.■..'.-. . ;.■ . .-i-;-;.-: ;••' .-,».' «.r.w
Q I recsive these public benefits/government entitlements that are based on indigency:
SSI WIC ■ Pood Slamps/SNAP TANF X Medicaid CHIP AABO Needs-based VA Pension County Assistance. County Health Care, or General Assistance (GA)
X US in Medicare ('Extra Help") ' Community Care via DADS X Low-Income Energy Assistance Emergency Assistance ;""• Child Care Assistance under Child Care and Development Block Grant Public Housing Olher: ,;*••.. ••.;.
G 'My income sources are staled below ..:.■•■. . .i« ■,■■ -:l•;..-, ■ X Unemployed since: ■uw 20Q2 _ -or-
Wages: I work as a for
Child/spousal support .J My spouse's income or income from another member of my household •</*«»/»»■•, Tips, bonuses : Military Housing Workers Ccmp '.*'■ Disability Unemployment X. Social Security Disability Relirement/Pension • ; Dividends, interest, royalties 2"" job or other income:
(5 "My income amounts are stated below. (■r.-.s.ij;,..
(a) My monthly net income after (axes are taken out is: 'w.-c ■ ■><>*;.•*::..;;!•., ■> $795.00 (b) The amount I receive each month in public benefits is. •■.•mi ,.iUi..- mei*-. » + $ (c) The amount of income from olher people in rny household is:' j.-ja'-H»\j:«.' -..cr .■■ i« -. + $ (d) The anount I receive each month from other sources is: .-,,•.«.»••.■ »■>v.-,-..-..•-• + s 100 00 (e) My TOTAL monthly income is Md 311 sources cf income acovo- = S K95.00 ■!.-;"•■ .•■•:•<:.• c'-A- ,•( .M.'.t'r i»:f."'.V(.-•■ •:••-•;./• :. ...• ■..... a-"i.:j :<:':•:■:>.'.:
£ TeiasLawHe.o.org • Affidavit ol Indigency. February 2014
About my dependants: 'The people who depend on me financially are listed below:
■Vvf'O Ay:- .Mr 1
2 I.J" _1_ '____"'" 3 _[ " 4 _
5 " " " ' " '""" 6 ' " © '•My property includes: Value* ©'My monthly expenses are. Amount
Cash L__-r_M. Rent/house payments/ma inlena nee s 45.00 Bank accounts other financial assets ■; -; Food and household supplies c 200.00 RBFCU CHECKING ACCT S 98.00 Utilities and telephone 5 127.00 .Ml^.SAYJNGA... s 5.00 Clothing and laundry 5 30..00 Medical and dental expenses S
Vehicles (cars, boats) ■.•.•xmuwaii.iya&i Insurance (life, health, auto, etc) S 88.48
1QJ 4.KIA.R!O_FJ, LJ School and child care s
5 Vehicle payments L_ Gas. b.is fare, auto repair s Child / spousal support
Real estate (house or land) (Donot«si me house younvo m.) Wages withheld by court order
s Debt payments S Other expenses lOoscnbe)
Other property (like jewelry, stocks, etc.) ■■oeicmo; 2002 PROWLER 32' RV S_2J)00 FINGERHJJT S 25.00 _ S FUEL FOR CAR AND HOME s 200.00
Total value of property — = S 16,105 Total monthly Expenses — = $ 750.48
"My debts include; .
jliQDjSTJ.TONE QAIULQSPITAL 5850.00, NIJ^
***due totjle size limit online documentation will be provided at hearing 12 22; 14 as required any aintrr iscts you ivacif the court to >".>i>iv ■.•lye'! a-. n;ii'Si/;i' motl'S!)- o kV'u.'.'M.'S. family vaii'Hjupruw o'- .i!;m-, h-i:'!"—
<;e ;o this fe-in .-ifirf'aos; <! 'Exhibit AilM:or>& Supvoiitaq Facts Check nore if you attach another page..
"1 am unable to pay court costs. I vorify that the statomonts mado in this affidavit are true and correct."
Your Signature. •■
S Sworn to and subscribed before me today. ..by \Y\iCX\C\C { ~rTvJ>"vvL> -9<r.
MICHAEL PAUL
- Affidavit d tnctigoncy rebmary 201^
Edit View History Bookmarks Iools Help f. .■■;J^1! ■"■ t&*y"^. ^y^^i^A^ >cT:; .;»1^:I
|/ eFiling lor Texas * \ +
<3* tMl JL £1 ■■''. ■ ■ t»coutts.gov
;P; Most visited ^_ Getting Started V 2001 Fo*d Ranger Wiri... © 2a-subj«t-rr>atter-juri... j BenefitsChecktp 0 Bexar County County... [] CashNetUSA (2) ; CashNetUSA ['"_ CIVIl PRACTICE AND _. 0 coa.tx Oefamation da... » Details
Precept Without Hearing S $0.00 Precept Without Hearing S S0.00 Abstract of Judgment so.oo Notice of Hearing Served i so.oo Temporary Injunction S«rv $0.00 Abstract of Judgment so.oo Notice of Hearing Served I $0.00 Precept Without Hearing S $0.00 Temporary Injunction Scrv $0.00
Rejection Information
Rejection Reason Date / Time Rejection Comment THE LEAD DOCUMENT IS A CCIS FORM, NOT A REQUEST. SELECT THE Incorrect/Incomplete 10/6/2014 8:58 AM CORRECT RUNG CODE. ALSO THE CASE IS CLOSED, SO A NEW AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY IS NEEDED. MARC G
Documents Lead Document Civ1ICase_lrrfomwtfonSheetSIGNED.pdf [Original] Attachments Attachments Requeet_At>stract_Judgment_WritOfExeeution for presidfng.pdf [original]
eService Details
Status Nome/Email Firm Served Date/Time Opened Log
office of attorney general Sent Yes Not Opened View esd-filer-303@texasattorney
DRO Legal Enforcement Tarrant County Domestic Sent Yes 10/6/2014 10:15:04 A View : ' j" sjjjJSiS 5^ ^ ;'" ^^ DRO-LegaK&tarrantcounty.o Relations Office
Request
SERVICE ATTNY GENERAL
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT COM AINS SENSITIVE DATA N(.l'N«:nc MICHAEL I I'M I. CP Nairn.-. URASDYL il'OOUFRTO.X OAO Number: 0»>lW2IW (AlSK NUMBER S2I4025
M1CIIM.I IHOMASi'AII s- INTIIEJI'STICECOl.RI
;\ * I'KLCINC 1 NUMUI-.K I WO
OriKI O!: [HF AilOKNhYC.LMRALCIlll.l) .* SUPPORT DIVISION AND MARY MORION ." C0MA1. COUNTY. II..VAN
OKOF.R DENYING PLAINTIFF'S REVISED PETITION: SMALL CLAIMS COURT AND GRANTING THE OFFICE OFTHF. ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MARY MORTON'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND MOTION TO DISMISS ON PLF.A TO THF. .11 RISDIt T1ON
On the 18" da\ of September. 20N ir.e Conn held a hcatinu in -Ins cau->c
The ATTOKNI-Y OKNLRAl and MARY MORTON. Defendants, appeared hv an Assi^ianl Altoric> Genera!. VUC HALL THOMAS PAl.'l . I'lnimill. uppcaivii Pro So
The Cour: heard and coiiMdcrcd the ;ilc.ii)im!s. the ariiiimciUi of Counsel, and the e\iocncc pronerl> and finds ihiinlK-Plaimilfs Rev ised I'ciiiion Small Clir.ms Counts DFNIF.l). I he Conn further GRANTS ilxOlllC K OP Tilt ATTORNEY (iF.NKRAI :md MARY Ml»RTON's Motion to Dismiss and Molion lo Oiimiss on ?lc» In ihe
IT ISTIIfcRI.IORH OROF.RED :hat MICHAEL 1 HOMAS PALI.'s Hclition at-d 1'lcHilir.gsarcnll hereb>
» nil pfv-iudicc IT IS Ft IK 11IER ORDDRCU that all any nnd all relic: requeued but nol granted M hereby UliNIFD.
inal Signed by:
JIDGU PRESIDING
APPROVED AS 10 FORM ONLY
RANUOLPII V. CiON/ALE/ SUN \rtorney of Record Child Support Divisior. lOSS.St Marv'sSt.. Stc -4S San Anionio. fX n20f< Telephone No. (2l<h 804-640(1 1 ax No. (210) V30-3625
EXHIBIT: ASSISTANT ATTORNY GENERAL GONZALEZ PURJURY CLAIM TO JUDGE MERY.NO SERVICE, DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE TO DELAY THE COURTON NOVEMBER 17, 2014.
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS SENSITIVE DATA NCP Name: .KUCHA El. T PA VL CV Name: BRANDY L. WOOL VERTON OAG Number: 0010017209 CADSF. NUMBER S214025
MICHAEL THOMAS PAUL f IN THE JUSTICE COURT
VS. § PRECINCT NUMBER TWO
OFFICE OF TlIE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHILD / SUPPORT DIVISION AND MARY MORTON >' COMAI. C:OUNTY. TEXAS
THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION AND MARY MORTON'S TRIAL BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF THE OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL AND MARY MORTON'S MOTION TO DISMISS ON PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
The OFFICn OF THK ATI ORNEY GENERAL CHILD SUPPORT DIVISION and it's employee, MARY
MORTON, (hereinafter Movanls) filed a plea to the jurisdiction objecting ro the court's excrciso of subject mutter
jurisdiction over the cause of action as alleged by Plaintiffs, MICHAEL THOMAS PAUI.'s. (hereinafter Non-Movam)
Revised Petition and requests the Court to dismiss Plaintiffs cau.se of action on the Plea to the Jurisdiction, and in
support thereof, shows the Court the following:
I.
FACTS/PROCEDURAL HISTORY
A. On August 11, 2014, Non-Movant. \\ICHAP.I. THOMAS PALI., filed his lawsuit alleging over
payments on court ordered child support payments to the custodial parent for over a three year period. Non-Movant
seeks monetary relief from the Movanls. in the amount of $10,000 plus damages for 'REAL PHYSICAL HARM" and
statutory interest and court costs.
H. Non-Movanl alleges thai Movjiiiw provided child support services to the custodial parent and continued u,
withhold support after the support obligation legally u :minnted.
C. Non-Movant further alleges that MovanLs Hied a false claim in State District Court to "gamer Civil
Judgment that appears/appeared on personal Credit Bureau".
D. Non-Movant does not plead facts indicating a constitutional provision or statute that clearly and
unambiguously waives sovereign immunity in these various claims.
E. Non-Movanl does not plead facts indicating the Legislature's consent to pursue this suit against the stale
or a public official.
F. In I heir individuul capacities, the Movants, and all persons acting on behalf of the State of Texas
participating in ihi.s cause have sovereign und official or quasi-judicial immunity from .suits or liability for attorney's fees.
EXHIBIT: ASSISTANT ATTORNY GENERAL GONZALEZ PURJURY CLAIM TO JUDGE MERY.NO SERVICE, DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE TO DELAY THE COURT -NOVEMBER-17^044=— -
monetarv judgments, damages or other monetary relief, except as provided by law, when aeting within the discretion, course, and scope of their official duties at all times relevant to Non-Movanl's claims.
II.
ARGUMENTS ON PI PA TO THE .nmiSDICTlON
A. Movants can demonstrate that ihis Court does not have suhjeel mailer jurisdiction over this cause of action and thai Non-Movant*s cause of action should be dismissed on the plea lo the jurisdiction on the contentions and affirmative defenses set forth herein based on the doctrine of sovereign immunity.
B. Movants pled both a plea to the jurisdiction on the doctrine of sovereign immunity and raised the affirmative defense of sovereign immunity to Non-Movanl's claims. The doctrine of sovereign immunity appliesto
lawsuits seeking lo award monetary relief against governmental entities and their employees or public officials unless a constitutional provision or statute clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign immunity from suit. This is true regardless of whether Movant has asserted a valid claim or ultra vires conduct; a violation of due process rights; or ihe intentional tort of fraud. No matter how Non-Movant couches his pleading, what is sought is a money judgment for the alleged overpayment of child support in an amounl in excess of SI 0,000 plus damages tor 'REAL PHYSICAL HARM'"
and statutory interest and court costs from Movants, undisputedly a governmental emily and its employee. Non-Movant.
however, has failed to identify any constitutional provision or statute that clearly and unambiguously waives sovereign
immunity from suit. ITie Non-Movant is precluded from seeking monetary relief from the Movant or any of its
employees on any of his alleged claims.
C. Non-Movant's exclusive remedy for support paid in excess of the support order is found in Texas Family
Code Provision § 154.012. This provision provides thai if an Obligor is not in arrears and the Obligor's child support
obligation has ended, the Obligee shall return excess proceeds to the obligor. An Obligor can file suit to recover a child
support payment in excess of Ihe support obligation against the Obligee. Movants had closed its case in April 2009,
shortly after being informed lhal Non-Movanfs parental rights had been terminated in 2005. Neither the Non-Movant or
the Obligee had previously informed the Movants of said termination order prior lo 2008. There is no legal basis for
payment by Non-Movant of the excess proceeds. Non-Movanl's sole remedy is a suit against the Obligee pursuant to
Section 154.012.
III.
AUTHORITIES ON PLEA TO THE JURISDICTION
SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY GENERALL Y
A. Governmental immunity from suit defeats a trial court's subject matter jurisdiction and is properly
asserted by a plea to the jurisdiction. Texas Dcpl. of Transportation v. Jones, 8 S.W. 3d 636. 637 (Tex. 1999). Whether a
court has subject matter jurisdiction is a question of law. Texas Natural Resources Conservation Comm'u v. IT-Davy, 74
S.W. 3d 849. 855 (Tex. 2002). Sovereign immunity deprives a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction in suits against
EXHIBIT: ASSISTANT ATTORNY GENERAL GONZALEZ PURJURY CLAIM TO JUDGE MERY.NO SERVICE, DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE TO DELAY THE COURT NOVEMBER 17.2014.
the State and its agencies and officials, unless the State has clearly and unambiguously consented to be sued..See Tex. Dep't ofParks and Wildlife v. Miranda. 133 S.W.ld 217,224 (Tex. 2004). Moreover, because sovereign immunity from suit deprives a trial court of subject-matter jurisdiction, it cannot he waived and may be raised at any time.,SV<? Miranda. \tt SW 3&a\ 22*; Texas Ass'n ofBus. v. Texas Air Control Bd.. 852 S.W.2d at 445 (Tex. 1993).
B. Sovereign immunity encompasses two principles: immunity from suit and immunity from liability.
Travis Cowuy vs. Petztsl and Aiawiaies, 77 SW3d 216 (Tex. 2001). Rven if the legislature consents to a suit, the government is srill protected from liability. Putzel, supra.
C. Sovereign immunity also bars suits that seek to control state action. See Fouler v. Teacher Ret. Sys.. 273
S.W.3d 883.886 (Tex. App.-Austin 2008, no pet.). Absent an express waiver of its sovereign immunity, the State is
immune from suit. See Stale v. Holland, 221 S.W.3d 639, 643 (Tex. 2007).
D. It is the plaintiff's burden to establish the State's consent to suit. IT-Davy, 74 S.W.3d at 855. First, only
the Legislature may waive sovereign immunity..See IT-Oavy. M 857 (reaffirming thai it is the Legislature's sole province
to waive or abrogate sovereign immunity). Second, any waiver of sovereign immunity must be in clear and unambiguous
language. See Tonka v. City ofMexiu. 197 S.\V.3d 325. 332-33 (lex. 2006).
E. Non-Movant does not plead a waiver of sovereign immunity for any of his claims (overpaid child support
payments: "Real Physical Harm" and court costs), nor does he request prospective injunctive relief or declaratory relief.
See City of El Paw v. Heinrich. 284 S.\V.3d 366, 369 (Ten. 2009). This Court should dismiss Non-Movant's cause of
action because his suit for damages is not recognized by any textual exception to Movanfs sovereign immunity. See Fed.
Sign v. Tex. .*>'. t/niv., 951 5>.W.2ci 401. 405 (Tex. 1997) (.state agencies are immune from liability in Texas unless the
Legislature waives that immunity): \ee ahu TF.X. GOV'T CODE § 311.034 (codifying common-law standard for
immunity waiver: "[A] statute shall not he construed as a waiver of sovereign immunity unless the waiver is affected by
clear and unambiguous language.").
CLAIM AGAINSTMARY MORTOX
A. Absent waiver by the legislature, sovereign immunity generally deprives courts of subject-matter
jurisdiction over suits against the State., its agencies, or officer* or employees acting within I heir official capacity. See
Citv of F.I Paw v. Heinrich, 284 S.W.3d 366, 369-76 (Tex. 2009). In its attempt to invoke this court's subject-matter
jurisdiction. Ntm-Movant, sues MARY MOR ION, an employee of the OFFICE OK THK ATTORNEY GENERAL
CHILD SI.IM'ORTDI VISION. See id. at 372-73, 377. Sovereign immunity does not bar suits for prospective injunctive
or decluraton relief to restrain the official from violating statutory or constitutional provisions because, in concept, acts
of stale official* ihat are not lawfully .iiithoi \/tn\ nru nui considered to be acts of" the State, and ihe remedy of compelling
EXHIBIT: ASSISTANT ATTORNY GENERAL GONZALEZ PURJURY CLAIM TO JUDGE MERY,NO SERVICE, DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THISjCASE TQ DELAYTHE COURT NOVEMBER 17,2014.
such officials to comply with (he law, while binding on the Slate, does not attempt to exert control over the State, Id. at 372-73 (emphasis added).
B. To assert such a valid ultra vires claim, the claimant "must not complain of a government officer's exercise of discretion, but rather must allege, and ultimately prove, that the officer acted without legal authority or failed
lo perform a purely ministerial act." Id. at 372. Otherwise, the suit, even if seeking only prospective declaratory or injunctive relief, implicates sovereign immunily because it seeks to control state action.."ke id. However, even if the suit complains of ultra vires actions, the remedy .sought cannot have the effect of awarding retrospective monetary relief
against the State or oilier relief that would independently implicate sovereign immunity. S^ id. at 369-76; Creedmoor-
Maha Water Supply Corp. v. Texas Coimn'ii on Envtl Quality, 307 S.W.3d 505, 515 (lex. App.-Austin 2010. no pet.).
C. Thus, sovereign or governmental immunity deprives trial courts of subject-matter jurisdiction over suits
for monetary damages or other retrospective monetary relief against government entities and their officers and
employees, acting in their official capacity, unless the State expressly consents. See Heinrich. 284 S.\V.3d at 368, 380
(Tex. 2009); Texus Dep't of Trump, v. Jones. 8 S.\V.3d 636, 638 (lex. 1099) (per curiam). This is true regardless whether
the claimant has otherwise asserted a valid claim of ultra vires conduct. See Heinrich, 284 S. VV.3d at 369-76; Cn-i'dtnoor-
Maha Water Supply Corp. v Texas Comm'n on Envtl. Quality. 307 S.WJd 505, 515 (Tex. App.«Austin 2010, no pet.).
Kastnvr vs. Texas Board of Law Examiners, 2010 Tux. App. Lexis 6076 (Tex. App.—Austin 2010, no pet.).
FRAUDULENT CIVIL JUDGMENT CLAIM
A. The Texas Tort Claims Act provides for a limited waiver of sovereign immunity for non-intentional torts.
Miranda. 133 S H 3dat 224: TEX. CIV. PR,IC. & REM. CODE# 10J.0OI - 109. However, under TEX. CIV. PRAC. ti
REM CODE § 10l.057(2j. claims arising from intentional torts arc excluded from the waiver of immunity. TEA". CIV.
PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.057(2). In Non-Movanl's Revised Petition Non-Muvanl pled a cause of action for "filing a
false claim" and filing a "fraudulent civil judgment". Fraud is an intentional tort See Texas River Rargex v. City ofSan
Amonio.Ti S.W.3d 347. 356 (lex. App. - San Antonio 2000, pet. denied). Additionally, Non-Movant"s intentional tort
claim of fraud or "raise claims'are barred by sovereign immunity because the Texas Tut I Claim Act docs not provide a
waiver of sovereign immunity to these types of claims. Under the Texas Tort Claims Act. there are only three areas in which the State and its agencies waive immunity for torts..we TF.X. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE § 101.021. (1) the
operation or use of a motor vehicle, (2) a premises tlelect, or (3) the use or misuse of property owned or controlled by the
State. Sec Old South Amusements. Inc. 2010 Tex. App. Lexis 5450.
EXHIBIT: ASSISTANT ATTORNY GENERAL GONZALEZ PURJURY CLAIM TO JUDGE MERY.NO SERVICE, DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE TO DELAY THE COURT NOVEMBER 17, 2014.
PRAYER
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Movonts pray that the Court grant Movants' Motion to Distniss on Pica 10 the Jurisdiction, and that this Honorable Court will dismiss Non-Movant's cause <>r action with prejudice as to the Movants and any funher relief, special or general, at law or in equity, as may be shown that Movants are justly entitled lo receive.
Respectfully submitted,
Greg Abboit Allomey General of Texas
Daniel T. Hodge First Assistant Attorney General
Randolph V. Gonzalez - SUN: 08131200 Melissa Ramos Munoz - SBN: 00786186 Attorney of Record Child Support Division CHILD SUPPORT UN!T 02Q1E fO6S. ST. MARY'SST.. STE. 445 SANAKTOMO TX 78205-3614 Telephone No. 210-804-6416 Fax No. 210-930-3625
EXHIBIT: ASSISTANT ATTORNY GENERAL GONZALEZ PURJURY CLAIM TO JUDGE MERY.NO SERVICE, DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE TO DELAY THE COURT NOVEMBER 17,2014.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served on the below listed parties or representatives pursuant m Rule 21 a, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, on the. 5* day of September. 2014.
RANDOLPH GONZALEZ Attorney ofRecord
Early: Attorney for Party: MlCHAliL TPAUI.
BRANDY L WOOLVERTON
EXHIBIT: ASSISTANT ATTORNY GENERAL GONZALEZ PURJURY CLAIM TO JUDGE MERY.NO SERVICE, DONT KNOW ANYTHING ABOUT THIS CASE TO DELAY THE COURT NOVEMBER 17, 2014.
LIABILITY 1
A:. ':„-■.; ■..-:.,- Sta:e:n»n: Da-.i- City of San Antonio Emergency Medical Service 621 N. Alamo
1410010194 12/05/14 1,188.80 San Antonio, TX 78215
A-i. Paymyms and Charges after th« .td ' We Accept Most Major Credit Cards c'ate Aiil appear on rext statement For Assistance: Telephone (210) 227-7252
To Pay Online Visit www bpservice.com; Control #14279013123
Patient
.....
_—
10/01/14 MICHAEL T EMS SERVICE 1.188J30 PAUL
*** FINAL NOTICE ***
j
Unless pa yment is received on this past-due accoun within
! FIFTEEN (15) DAYS
It will be transferr ed to our collection agency. Delinquent ace ounts may be lisU >d with the credit bureaus serving this area
i
t
1410010194 1.188.80 1,188.80 !
Current
b.uir;e Due
To Pay Online Visit www bpservice.com; Control # 14279013123 City of San Antonio Emergency Medical Service 621 N. Alamo San Antonio, TX 78215
□ SPn S^iaHB n
EDP# 142790131
MICHAEL T PAUL
City of San Antonio
9123 EASY ST
P.O Box 158
SAN ANTONIO TX 78266-2647 San Antonio. TX 78291-0158
AMujNT PAID
LIABILITY 2
NPAS, Inc. PO, BOX 99400 Services METHODIST STONE OAK HOSPITAL LOUISVILLE. KY 40269 Provided by:
031322-430510686-A1 Patient Name: Michael T Paul I Account Number: 502157591 Service Date(s): 10/01/2014 -10/02/2014 Statement Date: 12/01/2014 Placement Date: 11/01/2014
Contact Us
MICHAEL T PAUL NPAS, Inc 9123 EASY ST Toll Free 1-800-223-9899 Espanol 1-80C-681-9692 MON-FRI 8AM-9PM SAT 9AM-1PM ET SAN ANTONIO, TX 78266-2647 Please bo prepared to provide the patient/responsible party lull name, date of birth and mailing address. All calls may be recorded.
PAYMENT REQUEST
Total Charges Total Pymt I Adi Current Balanco Payment Duo By Amount You Owo t 43,773.79 S 42.SS3.34 $ 820.45 12/16/14 $820.45 .
Our records reflect that you were previously contacted regarding the unpaid balance of the account. We urge you to send payment in full today. In the event you are unable to pay the balance in full, please contact us to discuss options for resolving your account. METHODIST STONE OAK HOSPITAL; A METHODIST HOSPITAL FACILITY
Insurance Information Payment Options If the insurance information on file is incorrect, please contact us at the ®PAY ONLINE at your provider's weosite. toll-free number above. www.saheallrt.com/billinginqasp Primary: TRAILBLAZER OPAY BY PHONE at no additional cost through our automated system during or after normal business hours.
©MAIL PAYMENT lo the provider win the attached coupon at tno payment address specified Please do net send cash
PLEASE SEE REVERSE SIDE FOR IMPORTANT INFORMATION
Thr. imi '.Viltl Your P/iyimnl I' your Main*.* cftanqec ciuick >.hii box urtd Statement Date 12/01/2014 complete torn at DJCli
Account Number 502157591
MICHAEL T PAUL Payment Due Date 12/16/14 9123 EASY ST Balance Due S 820.45 SAN ANTONIO. TX 78266-2647 Payment Amount Enclosed
Ploaso do not send cash, if paying by chock or monoy order, please indicate account number and mako payable to tho provider.
PLEASE DETACH THIS COUPON AND RETURN WITH am Au'JKwi/dJon (ptoase 2hccK one)
g
PAYMENT TO ADDRESS BELOW:
D
C.tuon Cart Numtwr
METHODIST STONE OAK HOSPITAL P.O. BOX 740794 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 CINCINNATI, OH 45274
s
I'Xhil'H CcfCirernbur'A Signature Amount
PAUL MICHAEL
LIABILITY 3
STATE FARM INSURANCE COMPANIES
RECEIPT OF PAYMENT
PAYMENT DATE/TIME: 12-03-2014 11:54AM
POLICYHOLDER(S) MICHAEL PAUL 9123 EASY ST SAN ANTONIO, TX 78266-2647
POLICY DESCRIPTION/POLICY NUMBER CHECK/ REF # AMOUNT SFPP - PAC SUSP-SEE 000003T3257N2 $88.48 1115-5352-25
TOTAL AMOUNT PAID: $88.48
AUTHORIZED SIGNATURE: NICOLE GONZALES
AGENT Rick Cantara Agent 14791 IH 35 N, STE 105 Selma, TX78154 (210)656-3276
THANK YOU FOR YOUR PAYMENT ON THE ABOVE POLICY(IES). PAYMENTS ARE RECEIVED SUBJECT TO COLLECTION AND POLICY PROVISIONS WE APPRECIATE YOUR BUSINESS.
1004258 2002 142682 201 0502-2012
LIABILITY 4
D N
PO BOX 200143
San Antonio, TX 78220
(210) 333-4287
Fax: (210) 333-6287
11/14/2014
i'i
5774 T15 AUTO"3-DIGIT 782 Michael Paul 9123 Easy St Garden Ridge TX 78266-2647
RE: MICHAEL PAUL, 059174, $74.58
Dear Valued Customer
Our records indicate that your account is currently past due. Please remit your payment by the 15th of this month to avoid any interruption in service. If payment in full cannot be made at this time, please contact our office at (210) 333-4287 to make payment arrangements. Failure to do so will result in suspension of your services.
DATE INVOICE # $ AMOUNT
10/1/2014 0000685260 74.58
Total Balance $74.58
if you have already remitted your pay, please disregard this notice.
We appreciate your business and thank you for your cooperation with this matter.
Sincerely,
The Staff at Tiger Sanitation Inc.
BENEFIT 1
1 Blue Cross MedicareRx (pdp)"
23999
P.O. Box 3897 Scranton, PA 18505
Effective Date: January 01,2015
Evidence of Coverage Rider i ! for People Who Get Extra Help Paying for Prescription Drugs ■ (also called a Low Income Subsidy Rider or LIS Rider)
011552/PDPTX
Please keep this notice - it is part of Blue Cross MedicareRx Basic (PPP)SM's Evidence of Coveraiie.
j .
Our records show that you qualify for extra help paying for your prescription drug coverage. This means that .you will get help paying your monthly premium and prescription drug co-payments.
As a member of our Plan, you will receive the same coverage as someone who is not getting extra help. Your membership in our Plan will not be affected by the extra help. This also means that you must follow all the rules and procedures in the Evidence of Coverage.
Please see the chart below for a description of your prescription drug coverage:
Your co-payment amount for Your co-payment amount for Your monthly plan Your yearly generic/preferred multi-source all other drugs is no more premium is deductible is drugs is no more than than : S0.00* S0.00 S2.65 (each prescription) S6.60 (each prescription)
* The monthly plan premium does not include any Medicare Part B premium that you may still need to pay. The plan premium you pay has been calculated based on the Plan's premium and the amount of extra help you get. ;
Please refer to your Evidence of Coverage for more information on paying your plan premium.
You must continue to pay your Medicare Part B premium.
The benefit information provided is a brief summary, not a complete description of benefits. For more information contact the plan. Limitations, copayments, and restrictions may apply. Benefits, formulary, pharmacy network, provider network, premium and/or copayment/co-insurance may change on January 1 of each year.
Blue Cross MedicareRx is a prescription drug plan provided by HCSC Insurance Services Company (HISC), an Independent Licensee of the Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association. A Medicare-approved Part D sponsor. Enrollment in IllSC's plan depends on contract renewal.
;Y0096_liNR_TMP_LIS Rider PDP 15 Accepted 100120!4 !
BENEFIT 2
Regarding Mr. Michael Paul with telephone number 210-294-4533, this is to confirm his application and certification form have been approved by the Texas Low Income Discount Administrator. Mr. Paul is eligible for both the Lifeline (telephone) and electric discounts. Note the electric discount runs from May through August of each year.
His certification is valid to May of 2015. Upon recertification, 7 more months' benefit will be extended per program rules.
Note his telephone carrier (Cricket) has not send the LIDA is customer record. Therefore, he is not receiving the Lifeline discount. And his energy company (CPS Energy) does not participate in the program. In order to receive the energy discount, he would need to sign up with a participating energy company.
Dan Marion, PMP
Account Manager-Texas LIDA
Solix, Inc. | 30 Lanidex Plaza West | Parsippany, NJ 07054 T: 973.581.5052 | M: 973.769.7587 www.sollxlnc.com I Solix on Facebook | Solix on Twitter
Transparent Solutions. Visible Results
Statement Period
(RBFCUt 11/01/2014 through 11/30/2014 rbfcu.org
,>ersal City. TX 78148-2097 ADDRESS SERVICE REQUESTED Direct Inquiries to Member Services:
P.O. Box 2097, Universal City, TX 78148-2097 1-800-580-33001 rbfcu.org MICHAEL T PAUL Routing #; 314089681 9123 EASY ST SAN ANTONIO TX 78266-2647 Thank you for your membership!
We're dedicated to helping members like you save time, save money and earn money.
CHECKING SUMMARY | 9656057 Checking Rate • 0.05 | 'APYE - 0.00 Previous Statement Balance Total Credits Total Debits Current Statement Balance S3.99 $1,385.00 -$1,383.89 S5.10 Checking Account Deposits Date Description Amount Date Description Amount 11 /02 Deposit Internet Transfer from 379907 CK $100.00 11/24 Deposit Internet Transfer from 184402803 SAV $1.00 11/03 ACH Deposit SSA TREAS 310 - XXSOC SEC S79S.00 11/24 Deposit Internet Transfer from 184402803 SAV $1.00 11/12 Deposit CashNetUSA9!411131PAYDAYADV S450.00 11/29 Deposit Internet Transfer from 184402803 SAV $3.00 Freedom Check Card & Other Transactions Date Description Amount Date Description Amount 11/02 Withdrawal Internet Transfer to 184402803 SAV -510.00 P Ill/ll Point Of Sale Withdrawal RING RING WIREL 5580 FM $45.00 11/03 Point Of Sale Withdrawal NORTHERN TOOL E 2505 -$260 00 1 STF 114 SCHFKT7 NW Loop 410 SAN ANTONIO point ui bale wntiarawal CORNER STORE 2017599 IH -$1.07 11/03 ACH Withdrawal PB 855-306-9430 855-306-9430 - $29 95 WEBPAYMENT (i/iz e tn. 11-iu/U.n Withdrawal PAYPAL CREDIT -CONS -$35.00 11/04 ATM Withdrav/al RBFCU 12307 NACOGDOCHESSAN $40.00 BS ANTONIOTXUS i -1 v t\\.n wiinurawai rHYrML CntUI I - LONb 535700 11/06 Point Of Sale Withdrawal WMSUPERCENTER6102FM -$151.24 DRS (Rejected)
3009 SCHERTZTX USA 11/12 ATM Withdrawal RBFCU 12415 OLD CONVERSE -$160.00 11/06 PointOf Sale Withdrawal TWOTIME WARNER 1565 -$145.88 rrryTvii<:
fhpnaiilt <t flflW.TWrtBI C 1/14 ACH Withdrawal CashNetUSA 914111317P4340980- -$88.27 n 1/uo Point Of Sale Withdrawal STATE FARM INSU 3 STATE ■$88.48 PAYDAYADV FARM PLAZA 800-956-63
-S40.00
/u/ vviinorawai •i40.00 11/16 ATM Withdrawal RBFCU 4980 FM 3009SCHERTZTXUS -$100.00 11/09 Point Of Sale Withdrawal HEB #555 UNIVERSAL •$46.13 11/17 Withdrawal Internet Transfer to 184402803 SAV $5.00 CITTXUS
11/19 Point Of Sale Withdrawal Super Nova 10703 PERRIN -$13.00 11/10 Point Of Sale Withdrawal CORNER STORE 20 17599 IH $17.84 BEITEL RD San Antonio
35 N SCHERTZTX USA
11/19 Point Of Sale Withdrawal CORNER STORE 2017599 IH $2 99 11/10 Point Of Sale Withdrawal MCDONALD'S F140 8631 $8.12 35 N SCHERTZTX USA
BROADWAY SAN ANTONIO TX 11/20 Point Of Sale Withdrawal WAL Wal-Mart Super 92 -$38 72 11/10 Withdrawal -$12.00 SCHERTZTXUS
11/11 Point Of Sale Withdrawal JACK IN THE BOX 2235 NE •$4.20 11/22 Point Of Sale Withdrawal FEDEX OFFICE 0 11745 WIH $100 LOOP 410 SAN ANTONIO 10 SAN ANTONIO TX Checks Cleared
No activity this statement period.
PAGE 1 OF 2
Other Information
!
Description This Period - Checking YTD-Checking Courtesy Pay Fees $0.00 $0.00 Insufficient Funds Fees $0.00 -$24.00 Dividends $0.00 $0.01
PRIMARY SAVINGS SUMMARY | 184402803 Savings Rate - 0.20 | *APYE - 0.00
1 Previous Statement Balance Total Credits Total Debits Current Statement Balance
S6.00 SI 5.60 | -$20.60 | $1.00 Primary Savings Account | Deposits & Other Transactions
Date Description Amount Date Description Amount 11/02 Deposit Internet Transfer from 9656057 CK $10.00 11/16 ACH Withdrawal LENDING CLUB -8885963157 -50.60 11/10 Withdrawal ■$15.00 11 /24 Withdrawal Internet Transfer to 96560S7 CK $1.00 11/17 Deposit Internet Transfer from 9656057 CK 55.00 11 /24 Withdrawal Internet Transfer to 9656057 CK -$1.00 11/18 ACH Deposit LENDING CLUB -8885963157 $0.60 11179 Withdrawal Internet Transfer to 9656057 CK $3.00
Other Information
Description This Period - Savings YTD - Savings Courtesy Pay Fees $0.00 $0.00 Insufficient Funds Fees $0.00 S72.00 Dividends $0.00 S0.03
'APYE: Annual Percentage Yield Earned. APYE is calculated based upon account activity and average monthly balance.
Please examine your statement upon receipt and report any differences, irregularities, or discrepancies as specified in the RBFCU Membership Agreement
PAGE 2 OF 2
cricket * op uv «couri ocpor wty Ovtof?
Payments
-•—■''■■ "')
r ■■'•■'
"v; ■■■■■:■■■.#■ ■.
Pc>mer1 hjocmcton
■A' ■• ■■■* :4: I
BENEFIT
Michael T. Paul Sign Out Need Larger Text? Accessibility Help
vfe^; my Social Security
My Home
; Overview Benelit & Payment Details Earnings Record . My Profile
Use the browser print button to print this page.
Note: If your benefit has changed in recent months, your Payment Details may not show the most current amounts. You can view your current amounts by using the link below to "Get a Benefit Verification Letter." Payment Method:
Direct Deposit 0
Benefit Details Your monthly payments will be deposited to your account automatically.
Monthly Benefit Amount $835 00 (before any deductions) Active ( Update Direct Deposit~]
Payment Schedule 3rd of the month Next Pay~eni Date January 3.2015
The following information should not be used as proof of coverage It Is provlaed by the Enrolled Center for Medicare & Medlcaid Services (CMS) and may not reflect recont updates.
Part A (Hospital Insurance) Coverage Started: January 2005 Monthly Premium' SO 00 (as of January 2005)
Part B (Medical Insurance) Coverage Started. November 2011 Monthly Premium. $0.00 (as of November 2011)
Part C (Medicare Advantage) Please contact Medicare for the status of your enrollment.
Part D (Medicare Prescription Drug Coverage) Please contact Medicare for the status of your enrollment
team aDout replacing your Medicare card.
^ Medicare Questions?
J Please calLmnQ.fi33*l?27 or visltvA'.w.mediraiaiifiyfor assistance Ifvou are deaf .
Envelope Details' https://efile. txcourts.gov/EnvelopeDetails.aspx?envelopeguid= 14ce74cf-
Print this page
Case#2001CI16843
Case Information Location Bexar County - District Clerk Date Filed 12/20/2014 03:59:59 PM Case Number 2001CI16843 Case Description Assigned to Judge Attorney
Firm Name Individual Filed By michael paul Filer Type Not Applicable Fees
Convenience Fee $0.06 Total Court Case Fees $0.00 Total Court Filing Fees $0.00 Total Court Service Fees $2.00 Total Filing & Service Fees $0.00 Total Service Tax Fees $0.00 Total Provider Service Fees $0.00 Total Provider Tax Fees $0.00 Grand Total $2.06 Payment
Account Name bexar county cash account for appeal Transaction Amount $2.06 Transaction Response Transaction ID 5866037 Order # 003553213-0
Affidavit of Inability To Pay Indigency Filing Type EFilcAndServc Filing Code Affidavit of Inability To Pay Indigency AMMENDED AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY COURT COSTS FOR Filing Description APPEAL
Reference Number 2001-CI-16843/14-14-0791 APPEAL AFFIDAVIT AMMENDED WITH CONTRIBUTING Comments DOCUMENTS
Courtesy Copies James.Abanaka@bexar.org Status Submitting Fees
of 3 12/20/2014 4.02 PM
Envek-v Details' lutps://cfile.txcourts.gov/EnvclopeDetails.aspx? cnvelopcguid= 14ce74cl'-..
Service Date/Time Name/Email Firm Status Served Type Opened SCOT GRAYDON Not EServe No
SCOT.GRAYDON@TEXASATTORNEYGENERAL.GOV Sent Opened TEXAS
GREG ABBOTT Not Not ATTORNEY EServe No greg.abbott@texasattorneygeneral.gov Sent Opened GENERAL
of 3 12/20/2014 4:02 PM
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on the 20th day of December, 2014, a copy of the foregoing was served on the following pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure:
*** COPIES WILL BE GIVEN IN COURT MONDAY MORNING AT 9:00 AM
SINCE THESE EMAIL DELIVERY NOTICES WILL STILL BE IN TRANSIT.
Scott M. Graydon Assistant Attorney General P.O.Box 12584 Austin, Texas 78711,2548
Donna Kay McKinney Bexar County District Clerk 101 WNueva, Suite 217 San Antonio, TX 78205-3411 (210)335-2113
Isl Michael Thomas Paul
Michael Thomas Paul 9123 Easy Street San Antonio, Texas 78266 210-294-4533
75.00004500372.vl 995 vhier1ne stone COURT OF APPEALS FOURTH COURT Of" APPEALS DISTRICT KEITH E. MOTTLE chief justice CADENA-REEVES JUSTICE CENTER CLERK OF COURT ;aken angf.lini 300 DOLOROSA, SUITE 3200
■ andee bkvan marion SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205-3037 <1arialynrarnard WWWTXCOURTS.GOVMTIICOA.ASPX TELEPHONE tl-BHCAC. MARTINEZ 'ATKICIAO ALVAREZ (210)335-2635
.1.7 l-.l i;NA D. CIIAPA FACSIMILE NO.
JLS IIC.1;.S (210)335-2762
December 15, 2014
Scot Macdonald Graydon Michael Thomas Paul Office of the Attorney General 9123 Easy Street PGBox 12548 San Antonio, TX 78266 Austin, TX 78711-2548 * DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL :
RE: Court of Appeals Number: 04-14-00791-CV Trial Court Case Number: 2001-CI-16843 Style: Michael Thomas Paul v.
Greg Abbot Attoreny General for the State of Texas
The copy of appellant notice of appeal in the above styled and numbered cause has this date been filed or conditionally filed.
The fee for filing appeals in this court from the district or county is $195.00. The fee must be paid at the time the notice of appeal is filed. In addition, this court charges an additional fee of $10.00 for the filing of any motion. Any delay in remitting a filing fee will delay the processing of your appeal and the court's ruling on pending motions. See Tex. R. Apr P. 5.
Our records do not reflect payment of the $195.00 fee. Please remit the filing fee no later than December 29, 2014. If the fee is not paid within the time allotted, the matter will be referred to the court, and the appeal is subject to being stricken by the court. See Tex. R. App. P. 5. In accordance with Tkx. R. App. P. 32 and 4th Tex. App. (San Antonio) Loc. R. 5.2., a docketing statement must be filed with the notice of appeal. Our records do not contain a docketing statement for this appeal. Please ensure that a docketing statement is immediately filed to ensure prompt processing of the appeal. The Appellant's docketing statement is due from Michael Thomas Paul. The docketing statement is to be filed with this court by December 29,2014. 3 The appellate record generally must be filed in this court within 60 days after the date of judgment is signed. See Tex. R. App. P. 35.1.
Very truly yours, KEITH E. HOTTLE, CLERK
Deputy Clerk. Ext. 3219
cc: Donna Kay McKinney (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
Dinah L. Gaines (DELIVERED VIA E-MAIL)
I '. ■ . > ■..
Michael Thomas Paul v. Greg Abbot Attorney General for the State of Texas (Michael Thomas Paul v. Greg Abbot Attorney General for the State of Texas) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.