Mitchel, Eric v.

CourtCourt of Appeals of Texas
DecidedDecember 20, 2017
DocketWR-87,839-01
StatusPublished

This text of Mitchel, Eric v. (Mitchel, Eric v.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Texas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Mitchel, Eric v., (Tex. Ct. App. 2017).

Opinion

h

Court No. 2

TO: Tim Curry Criminal Justice Center Tarrant County District Clerk's Office 401 West Belknap Street Fort Worth, Texas 76196

FROM: EricV. Mitchel 2123 Windcastle Drive Mansfield, Texas 76063

RE: Cause No. 1387867-1

DATE: November 13,2017

Dear Clerk:

Enclosed please find Petitioner's Inquest Order (attachments-8) please file thiswith the2""* District Court Judge and bring this o his/her attention.

Please file this in your usual manner, and allow me to know of any ruling upon this inquest at my address listed above.

Thank you for your assistance in this manner.

Sincerely,

3 Eric V. Mitchel UCC-1-308 Without Prejudice

RECEIVED IN COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS

DEC 0 2017

Deana Williamson, Clerk CAUSE NO 1387867-1

ERIC V. MITCHEL, PETIONER IN THE 2"" DISTRICT

VS COURT OF

STATE OF TEXAS TARRANT COUNTY TEXAS

PETITIONER MOTION REQUESTING THE COURT TO COMPEL THE DISTRICT CLERK TO COMPLY Wrra PETITIONER'S REQUEST FOR DOCUMENTS.

TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE WAYNE SALVANT OF SAID COURT:

Now comes Eric V. Mitchel, Petitioner pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure presenting his motion request to the court for Inquiry pursuant to Government Code §§S2.028(b) does not prohibit a governmental body from disclosing to an individual described by subsection [a] [1] or that individual's agent In this section [c] correctional facility means: [1] a secure correctional facility, as defined by section 1.07, penal code, [2] a secure correctional fiacllity and a secure detention facility as defined by section 51.02 family code; and [3] a place designated by the law of this state, another states or the federal government for the confinement of a person arrested for, charged with, or convicted ofa criminal offense.

The requested documents are essential to the litigation of Petitioner's constitutional claims and the preservation of his constitutional rights under the Amendments to the Constitutional of the United States of America. Further, Petitioner is entitled to the requested documents under Texas Public Information Act. Michael Morton Act, Access to Court and the Interest of Justice. In support of his motion and for good cause. Petitioner will show the court as follows: [1]

On November13,2017, Petitioner sent a "Letter of Inquiry" to the District Attom^'s office for Tarrant County Texas, requesting certified copies ofany contract(s) upon which the state relyin the presumption that the Petitioner ever waived his unalienable rights and agreed with Full Disclosureand knowledge that Petitioner ever agreed to be treated as a colorable person under military rule. Certified copiesof the instrument(s) upon which the state rely in STATE OF TEXAS prosecutionof Petitioner. (SeeAttachment) n

The District Attoniey responded on August 25,2017 in a short memo."In response to your request, please be advised that the TEXAS PUBLIC INFORMATION ACT does not require a governmental body (le. Tarrant county Criminal district Attorney's office) to comply with a requ^ for information form:" • An individual who is imprisoned or confined in a correctional facility: or, • An agent of that individual, other than the indhlduars attorney - when the attorney is seeking information that Is subject to disclosure under Chapter 552 of the TEAS GOVERNMENT CODE, SEE TEX.GOVT. CODE § 552.028(A) (VERNON 2016) OF THE ACT. (See attachment)

m

Established the fact that Petitioner Is incarcerated at the O. L. Lutiier Unit (TJ>.CJ.) and this violation of the 4"* and 14"* Amendment of theConstitution of the United States. Petitioner has never been provided with the certified copy of the instruments upon which the state rely in STATE OF TEXAS prosecution of the Petitioner.

IV

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, PETITIONER prays that this court consider this motion for inquiry and upon the facts listed therein grant him the documents that are needed. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certified that on November 13,2017, that a true copy of the foregoing Motion for Inquiry was mailed out postage prepaid first class addressed to:

Tarrant County District Clerk's Office 401 West Belknap Street Fort Worth, Texas 76196

Eric V. Mitchel - Petitioner UCC-1-308 Without Prejudice. Foot Notes

Rodriques v.Ray Donavan (U.S. Department ofLabor) 769 f. 2s 1344,1348 (1985) "All codes, rules andregulations are forgovernment anthorities only, not human/creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules and regulations are unconstitutional andlacking dueprocess..." PEOPLE - are supreme, notthestate. (Waring v. theMayor ofSavanah); Thestatecannotdiminish rights ofthe people. Hertado v.California, 110 U.S.516. The right to beletalone isthemost comprehensive ofrights andthe rightmost valued bycivilized men. Toprotest that right, every unjustifiable intrusion by the government upon theprivacy oftheindividual whatever the means employed, must be deemed a violation of the Fourth Amendment "[Olmstead v. U.S..277 U.S. 438,478 (1928)]. use 18§ 241 - CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS: If two or more persons conspire to injure, threaten, or intimidate any person inany state inthe free exercise or enjoyment ofany rights they shall befined under this title or imprison ed not more than ten years or both. use 18 §242 DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW: whoever, under color ofany law, statue, ordinance) regulation, or custom, willfully subjecte any person inany STATE to be deprivation ofany rights shall befined under this title or imprisonednot more than one year, or both. use 18 §2076 - CLERK IS TO FILE: whoever, being a clerk wiUfulIy refuses or neglects tomake orforward any report, certificate, statement, ordocument as required by law, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both. use 42 §1983 - CIVIL ACTION FOR DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS: Every person who, under color ofany statue, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, ofany state subjects, orcauses to be subjected, any person withm the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, orimmunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shallbe liable to the party injuredin an action at law. use 42 §1985 - CONSPIRACY TO INTERFERE WITH CIVIL RIGHTS: Iftwo or more persons inany state or territory conspire for the purpose ofdepriving, either directly or indirectly, any person's rights, the party so injured ordeprived, may have anaction for the recovery ofdamages against any one or more ofthe conspirators. "Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making orlegislation which would abrogate them." [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S..436,491] Consent To INDICT - The Fifth AmendmentStates: "No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentmejrt of indictment of a Grand Jury..." UnderU.S. code 42and 18, when youare detained, without yourconsent, for violating a statue, youhave just been kidnapped and if the judgesetsa bail,he just set a ransom and when theprosecutor confirms thecharges, he becomes part oftheconspiracy and can put the conspirators in jail and sue them for damages.

ATTACHMENTS-8 vases

4 United States ofAmerica

TO: District Clerk/Criminal District Attorney

RE; STATE ofTEXAS v. Eric V. Mitchel,District Court #2, CASE No. 1387867-1

LETTER OFMOUIRY

Dear District Clerk/CriminalDistrict Attorney Sharen Wilson:

Please provide the foUowmg information pursuant to Eric V. Mitchel's, hereafter Aggrieved Party, right to redress of grievance as stipulated in the Constitution for the United States of America. This request is further made pursuant to Title 42 U.S.A.

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

Related

Olmstead v. United States
277 U.S. 438 (Supreme Court, 1928)
In Re Guerra
235 S.W.3d 392 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2007)
In Re Nestle USA-Beverage Division, Inc.
82 S.W.3d 767 (Court of Appeals of Texas, 2002)
State Ex Rel. Rodriguez v. Marquez
4 S.W.3d 227 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1999)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
Mitchel, Eric v., Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mitchel-eric-v-texapp-2017.