ACCEPTED 15-25-00035-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/4/20251 12:15 / 14 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE 15-25-00035-CV CLERK ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals AUSTIN, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4/4/2025 12:15:10 AM Steven J Stringfellow Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE 10160 Hwy 242 Asst. Atty. General Anthony Clerk Dolcefino Ste 800-4117 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Conroe, TX 77385-4379 <~v~> Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 571-2036 (512) 936-1327 TheFederalExitParty@gmail.com Anthony.Dolcefino@oag.texas.gov ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Appellant's Brief ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Table of Contents 1. Table of Contents (p.1)
2. Index of Authorities (p.2)
3. Statement of the Case (p.3)
4. Issues Presented (p.3)
5. Statement of Facts (p.5)
6. Summary of the Argument (p.8)
7. The Argument (p.8) 2 / 14
2. Index of Authorities
I. Article III Precedent Law for Recession's Caveat of Jurisdiction (recession's
extenuation for secession's refederation higher under The Declaration of Independence
and the 10th & 14th Amendments)
p. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13
II. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 103
p. 5, 7, 8, 12
III. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 105
p. 3, 4, 5
p. 4 3 / 14
3. Statement of the Case
3.1. This cause is a personal injury civil against the State suit for wrongful
imprisonment of a sovereign civilian under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code
Chapter 103, seeking relief in the form of monetary compensation. The Defendant's
Counsel had filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss which was granted by
the previous court leading to notice of appeal being filed, which was approved for this
case. A motion of frivolous claim was also filed by the Plaintiff in this cause.
4. Issues Presented
4.1. The Great Recession has surely led to issues with respect to this cause. As
stated in the original litigation, systemic issues within government had most likely
caused the Plaintiff's application for compensation for wrongful imprisonment to
become lost, either by the Post Office or by the Comptroller's Judiciary Section,
impinged by the fact that law in Tex Civ Prac & Rem Code Ch 103 does not require
applications to be sent via registered mail.
4.2. Recession at large though does imply that civilians be in caveat for progress
in order to qualify for preference at any rate under the Article III precedent law for
sovereign immunity, which was properly cited by the Appellant. Therefore, the law
should have directly upheld the claims that there was an error on behalf of the State at
some rate or level at least moreso considering, which was supported by other evidence 4 / 14
showing other shortcomings of the Comptroller Judiciary Section with regard to an error
with their email system. Other evidence has since added to this case from the general
goings on and findings of the new administration, namely with respect to The
Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) who have uncovered perhaps trillions
upon trillions of dollars, implying that the aggregate of the theft would indicate a
criminal violation from and against every single citizen due under democratic principles
according to the amounts determining felony theft, also corroborating with recession
being federal--with total debt now being greater than half of total assets.
4.3. Such massive undersight would at first seem to indicate a culture not just of
corruption but also criminality in the United States, in turn coinciding with the
Appellant's claims that recession's extenuation was being extenuatingly interpreted by
members of the government to wit, in that recession's clause requites recession against
recession in order to trigger secession's superluminal net-gains under the Article III
precedent law for sovereign immunity (exhibit P.3 Sec 1.3.3), implying that citizens not
in caveat not be relieved of civil actions taken against them and that citizens in caveat be
given direct preference under recession's clause per civil rules of evidence, even if in
extreme cases when such may entail governmental kamikazeing for the greatest federal
action possible.
4.4. Government immunity, being one half of the precedent law as applied to
citizens not in caveat versus government arbitrarily so by the sheer objective definition, 5 / 14
had obviously aligned the caveat hitherto in stately recession before federal action
became lawful, as would be evidenced by the Plaintiff's indice of such circumstance
occurring, perhaps lending to the belief that recession was ultimately lawful due to most
cases not being in caveat then, leading to crime which would fall outside of the
precedent as we are seen now being uncovered by DOGE, etc. But the Appellee's
claiming sovereign government immunity against a member of the people within
sovereign caveat should be seen more primarily as due to federal recession's extenuation
upon the extenuation to cannibalize all citizens indiscriminate to the caveat in order to
generate higher reliefs for even greater parity...and in fact there may have been nary a
case in caveat to even have been judged in favor of during stately recession to have
given anyone a clue otherwise, in nature's serene way of being so perfectly
federal...camouflaged almost.
5. Statement of Facts
5.1. The Appellant had sent in the application for compensation for wrongful
imprisonment to the Defendant, Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section, meeting the
criteria under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 103, as well as two
changes of address notifications, to which no reply was received.
5.2. The Appellant attempted to contact the Comptroller Judiciary Section about
the application in May 2025 via email, to which an error message was received, leading 6 / 14
the Appellant to suspect that the application was not processed. The application may not
have been received for a number of reasons, of which would of course coincide with
recession in general, with there having been other similar goings on having occurred to
the Appellant from recession in the people from a hacker clan as well as from apparent
corruption in the government, which Appellant has learned are really most likely the
same demographic just at different roles, whom I suspect have all been coordinating
more acutely in recession, also being encouraged by such odd coincidental extenuation
against progress not in caveat for secession in federal government, also compounded by
the uniqueness of this first instance when recession had to occur if not for
demonstration's purposes alone, bolstering crime by such apparent confusion
otherwise...and they would have had plenty of time, power, ways and means through the
known issues of technology and internet crime as well as other modern safeties, etc to
organize and share information on preferred and/or threatening targets with regard in
order to focus such crime upon. Appellant may have fallen under such victimization
again in this cause, for these funds were higher and were almost guaranteed, and in fact
it was caused by a previous issue caused specifically by such crime.
5.3. Then again, the application and the subsequent letters may not have been
processed due to an error at the Defendant's office but perhaps at the Post Office, which
also may have been caused by such mentioned crime or perhaps just recession, either of
which would be more confirmed now by similar issues which are being address by 7 / 14
DOGE, etc...of which have transpired during the processing of this case, in very much
support any way around.
5.4. The complaint for this cause was filed in Travis District Civil Court where
the State's Counsel was assigned to the case, who filed their plea to the jurisdiction and
motion to dismiss based upon the argument of sovereign government immunity. That
litigatory tactic seems to be a common from the State in the Appellant's experience, as
the AG's office has cited sovereign immunity in other cases and it would seem that the
courts have been approving this type of argument from them.
5.5. This case has in-effect come down to an argument based upon sovereign
government immunity, and the Court should note the fact that such argument being
litigated by the State has indeed confirmed that what was being alleged by the Appellant
did in fact occur. This appellate matter should consist of arguments based upon the
definition of and logic behind sovereign immunity which as mentioned may be seen as a
device that has been adapted from an archaic english monarchial term reapplied to
federal government with specificity to the mechanism of refederation (from secession),
being implicit constitution in matter of time's federal state.
5.6. Due to there being no evidence from the State supporting their argument of
sovereign immunity a frivolous motion complaint was filed due to it being moreso
probable that members of the government have become pro-extenuated vai the modern 8 / 14
definition of sovereignty, merely appearing as though it were the ancient chivalrous
version exempting government in every case, as stated.
6. Summary of the Argument
6.1. Appellant basically argues that federal law in freedom under God is a
technological apparatus to be employed by the people there of and for based upon
intowards such logic in a manner which may be proven by mathelogical reasoning
through deductive logic under order of operation...and that sovereign immunity is a
precedent law under Article III which may fall in favor of the people or government in
certain cases depending on whether or not the caveat is present, and that in this case the
state has honored such through providing auxiliary relief through the motion for
frivolous claim's being able to be approved.
7. The Argument
7.1. Presence of sovereign caveat would be simple to determine for people or
government because the logic of federation would be indelible of and for the matter,
with secession therein being the most efficient expression of refederation considering
that the federal would be implicit, in that two is the only even prime over one, two and
three being the only three sequential primes and also first three integers, with one's 9 / 14
definition implying a second implicit entity and with those two being one more in three
by two of one union by the matter of charge: past and future in/of present, proton and
neutron in/of electron in jurisdiction of spacetime.
7.2. Secession's mechanism bears resemblance to inefficiency due to being post-
efficient, just as -1 and 1 share the same absolute value though differ by two integrals.
In fact, secession's ability to manually rearrange states of matter is actually able to
harness superluminal capability through the mind of man via quantum entanglement's
quantum teleportation of information in order to make up for lost time that normal
progress against recession would be inherently incapable of performing, by simply
changing tact with respect to civil tort through judging in favor of the caveat...which
means that those not in caveat for refederation via secession's net gains would be seen as
having instigated such malfeasance at any rate, implying that government maintain due
course untowards progress counterintuitively through recession's triggering of secession,
with such logic being inherent to the matter of any and all matter, even when recession
becomes federal.
7.3. In fact, when recession does become federal, when total national debt
equals as much or greater than half of total assets (such as in our economic situation
currently) the truest nature of a democratic republic may be derived, for obviously in
such a state recession would be the majority, and so how else would such a nation be
able to maintain existence if the courts did not judge against a majority recession yet 10 / 14
also be able to fulfill democratic principles? The fact of the matter would be that the law
would have to be as recessive as possible inthrough bearing the federal nature of the
matter in time by being recessive against recession also by progress, which mirrors
quantum law due to time's being positive inherently though yet with change also
consisting of negative and positive charge in as one by the matter--meaning that
recession would yet simply be able to be a type of superluminal state by and for progress
in a zeroing absolution of integrity through the caveat of jurisdiction for sovereign
immunity under recession’s extenuation also for progress in recession against recession
too.
7.4. Affirming these goings on would be the consideration that when recession
becomes federal, government may actually begin cannibalizing citizens irrespective to
the caveat, for it would be implied that those in caveat would gain even more from
extenuated reliefs duly, furthering the gap, and also allowing nature to take her
course...at the same time. The fact that such otherwise disrespect would tend to appear
as crime associating with recession would only serve to re-affirm such recessive
legitimacy and also tend to suggest that those in government and of society not familiar
with decency in law could not just be confused, yet but also tend to be confused at the
same time by those forgetting that civility still must maintain the federal in kind a
second time and again. 11 / 14
7.5. With the above being stated, the Defendant does have a constitutional right
to claim sovereign government immunity though it should be well understood that any
confusions otherwise as to why such as perhaps any claims of being less than competent
or acceptable should be seen as less than appropriate, especially considering that Texas
would be the foremost state in a union of government's highest form of technology now
preeminent in the world in a most peculiar manner...and so one would be left with the
assumption that the law has been following the higher path of caveat with respect due to
such claims being federally frivolous and lawful at the same time, obviously towards
eventually surrendering the highest relief towards the caveat vested in the people's
government. Exhibit P.3 Sec 2.4.4.2 would further correlate with such argument, which
basically posits that recessive states would not just impart their own extraneous energies
but also goings on therein would compound, such as Thimerosal in the vaccines in our
own situation, etc, etc...leaving no way out other than through the light.
7.6. Recession's being superluminal would serve as the final justification of such
argument herein, due to any assumptions otherwise with respect to the Plaintiff tending
to be able to be harnessed by federal mechanism towards ever more constitutional states
of alliance, with the caveat aligning in the highest order notwithstanding inbetween
therefore giving immunity under Article III precedent for sovereignty, with federal
recession’s cannibal clause serving to retort all else towards the minority logic as it were
mostly major, and felled by the fact that this first instance of secession is extenuating 12 / 14
due to the need to cause recession for no other apparent reason in order to highlight
crime that occurred in times before our government was ratified, which may seem long
ago to us now but in a thousand years will seem like just the other day. How else would
the precedent have aligned the caveat prior if not for by being judged in favor of
somehow, even through disfavor by the matter's ability, in undeniable support?...with
competency being inherently sovereign to the matter's entanglement with the being
federal positive despite all, proving that a Court should obey the will of the caveat in the
people moreso. If a minority will in the people may occur judgment in favor of the
caveat against the majority, there should be no way to prove at least lawfully in a
democratic fashion that any sort of majority opinion should be able to prevail against it,
and with sovereignty actually being the definition of competency otherwise
notwithstanding...leaving the above to be the better explanation, the extenuation upon
the extenuation of the extenuation...perhaps cannibalizing us all until we allow the law
to at the very least run its course if not for the sake of the trial alone.
7.7. Due to so many cases concurrently of the Plaintiff's and very little relief as
of yet, there should be a marked constitution towards sacrificing the higher reliefs
obtainable of just one or two of those cases so that the Plaintiff may have the funds
necessary to obtain these types of higher reliefs from the other cases being protracted by
the indelible logic of the state, by the hypocrisy...with the subject matter of those cases
all being inherently more moot due to the caveat taking precedent ceteris paribus, 13 / 14
meaning that the litigations thereunder are tending to be and will inevitably become
about the same as time is one, and in fact those cases most likely will also be eventually
conjoined, canceling out into the following request becoming more constitutional. As
such, a simple request by the caveat resting in the people whom governmental
technology in freedom serves should be enough to legally invoke to a civil court that
judging in favor of would be the most lawful route.
7.8. Therefore, the Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests that the court retain that
this litigation has stated that the caveat should be obeyed in this matter for the federal in
us all.
7.9. This cause is very cut and dry, the State has confirmed that normally relief
would be owed, in that if the Comptroller Judiciary Section had been operating normally
that there would not have been an issue...though evermore considering that this case's
impetus likely stems from external corruption from abusive members of society anyway
from Austin and also the Dark Net, who most likely had been stalking the Plaintiff for
some time via online gaming and simply had arranged certain officials to be bribed and
then also had compromised State computer systems using supercomputer hacking
technology (a simple feat).
7.10. This case should serve as a more appropriate case to align to for the caveat
as litigated by law due to the logic in fact and of the current status quo, for it would be 14 / 14
obvious by exhibit P.3 that there should be more to gain in net and very little time to do
so. Thank you, thank you very much. ___________________________________________________________________________________
I, Plaintiff Steven J Stringfellow, hereby certify that all of the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of law.
Statefully Submitted,
03/29/2025 ___________________________________________ Dated: ______________
Steven J Stringfellow 10160 Hwy 242 Ste 800-4117 Conroe, TX 77385-4379 (512) 571-2036 thefederalexitparty@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certificate of Service _______________________________
I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished towards:
Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section 111 E. 17th St. Austin, TX 78711 (512) 936-5985 Adam.Fellows@cpa.texas.gov Elena.Bendea@cpa.texas.gov
Texas Office of the Attorney General 300 W. 15th Street Austin, TX 78701 (512) 463-2100 Anthony.Dolcefino@oag.texas.gov Sarah.Orr@oag.texas.gov
Return service to:
Steven J Stringfellow 10160 Hwy 242 Ste 800-4117 Conroe, TX 77385-4379 (512) 571-2036 thefederalexitparty@gmail.com Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 99272358 Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Appellant's Brief Status as of 4/4/2025 7:00 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Atty General Anthony.Dolcefino@oag.texas.gov 4/4/2025 12:15:10 AM SENT