ACCEPTED 15-25-00035-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Exhibit M (Amended) 5/6/2025 6:33 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CLERK Recession's Clause RECEIVED IN ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/6/2025 6:33:38 AM 1. Statement CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
1.1. The Court may see from the graphs and excerpt below that the current state of the union has been in retrograde, with debt being moreso federal now at over 50%. Any entity owing more than half of what it is worth veritably does not own itself. 1.2. Of such a case in our own Nation the logic presents us with the inavoidable conclusion that the citizens of the United States under this condition must be seen as moreso unconstitutional in their own rights than not under rules of evidence, with the dollar standing for a unit of work and work being measured in Newton-Meters, and with Energy in E=mc^2 being measured in Newtons, which would support the claim that an energetic confluence or deficit in our financial energies would so equate unitarily to measures of our matters in lawful jurisdiction. Such assertion would be underpinned and undeniable considering quantum entanglement's warp speed withunder, with time’s parent dimension biding all via the 5th/14th Amendments’ rights against deprivation, constitutionally speaking, upheld by the 9th/10th fastly. 1.3. One may see by the graphs and the excerpt from Wikipedia further below that the current the national debt is currently at about 55% of gross assets, placing any and all aspects of The United States by any measure as 5% moreso recessive on the whole under the preponderance through civil rule. Those figures are more explicit than the simple per-year GDP figures as well, which should stand as irrefutable, direct evidence in a court as a clause of recession with respect to citizen parties or the government ceteris paribus with respect to the sovereign caveat, with the following logic extenuating below.
2. The Extenuation
2.1. Recession's clause should indicate receding guilt on the more economically responsible party, all things being equal with regard to legal tender...as such, sovereign caveat with respect to secession's superluminal gains therefrom the extenuation for recession may occur receding guilt in a positively negative fashion under recession's clause, or in an exotic post-positive superluminal federal capacity by the same token depending on the sovereign angle, with the latter being both most lawful and only so in caveat for recession against recession in progress...which places progress not in caveat as evermore recessive, creating extenuation for recession versus to become negatively positive imaginarily effective. Such caveat of secession from recession's extenuation is known as sovereign immunity under the Article III precedent law and has two parts, sovereign civil immunity and sovereign government immunity, with the latter being a derivation of the former when citizen parties are not in caveat and recession must be upheld otherwise moreso in favor of secession by the government. 2.2. Duly, the burden of proof should rest away from sovereignty, with recession's clause serving as most parent circumstantial evidence towards the insovereign disproving any other further claims falling withunder too. A court may feel compelled to act differently under recession to some altered degree commensurately considering such an analog being same yet though also different, perhaps only shifting the burden of proof in-as-much (assuming extenuation otherwise had been passed), and so may rule in favor of the caveat moreso than normal with regard. Though it should be obvious that any citizen in recession who had allowed such not seeking remedy should be seen as occurring further recession unto themselves, which may be pursued by other citizens and/or the state aggressively as a civil matter. 2.3. Any citizen party lacking proper caveat should succeed against an opposing party lacking same being economically greater towards recession under the extenuation regardless of the civil case, cp (with certain rights to civility already eschewed by recession’s draw). Inclination to relax rules of evidence due to overarching malfeasance in recession should of course only apply when both parties had also passed secession's extenuation with favor toward matter in time. It might be natural to assume that less economically endowed parties would be those who drag us into recession...though perhaps the more civil albeit plausibly deniable approach would be to assume that those in power usurp legitimacy causing such trends. Either could be seen as correct, though federal form exempts any and all from secession's extenuation for progress to be had by either hand, also proving that larger parties would at the very least be just that, depending upon the sovereign quickening of quantum teleportation of information in self-governance (naturally defaulting to government in lieu of civil caveat). 2.4. Such proofing though should help a court to see the overall predominance of secession's extenuation, with that mechanism being profederal (if there were such a thing) and how the caveat tends to have a deeper sway in net, which should help convince a court under such extenuation to allow recession to stand moreso as direct evidence itself and also circumstantial evidence towards other claims in-as-far just for the sake of civility, with perhaps no better logical feature nearby constitutionally speaking, indicating that the extenuation’s fog was likely more to blame for any confusions, and of which would also be expected at least somewhere, considering. 2.5. One may observe again the logic of the extenuation under Article III by the mentioned precedent law of sovereign government immunity for intentional torts against citizens who normally would have been relieved, and then now also consider how such judgment should now tend to work back the other way after such inverted rulings had brought about proper caveating towards the moreso constitutional net gain of secession in recession--that when parties in caveat even so much as could have a claim against the another not the hypocrisy tends to eschew normal law in favor of the deeper extenuation integrally just the same the other way, which then may be used as further derivation in order to abject that recession outside of secession's superluminal caveat probably should be taken at the very least as moreso overt, direct evidence of circumstance negative. 2.6. The courts should also bear in mind that the extenuation should precede caselaw as well, with recession being more major as a whole than individual cases thereunder. Authorities being cited not in caveat against sovereign litigants in caveat may be seen as a confusion of order in operations due to the extenuation able to apply differently toward the caveat for the same causes depending--especially when those cases may not have been fully mature to the caveat in due course, therefore tending to have confusing or twisted arguments attempting to negotiate such territory which could be taken out of context when applied transversely instead of scalarly (with transversity being inherent to the federal scalar...in that recession's majority must imply recessive progress of secession in order to satisfy the hypocrisy of the states existence superseding democracy being sovereign). 2.7.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
ACCEPTED 15-25-00035-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS Exhibit M (Amended) 5/6/2025 6:33 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
CLERK Recession's Clause RECEIVED IN ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 15th COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/6/2025 6:33:38 AM 1. Statement CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE Clerk
1.1. The Court may see from the graphs and excerpt below that the current state of the union has been in retrograde, with debt being moreso federal now at over 50%. Any entity owing more than half of what it is worth veritably does not own itself. 1.2. Of such a case in our own Nation the logic presents us with the inavoidable conclusion that the citizens of the United States under this condition must be seen as moreso unconstitutional in their own rights than not under rules of evidence, with the dollar standing for a unit of work and work being measured in Newton-Meters, and with Energy in E=mc^2 being measured in Newtons, which would support the claim that an energetic confluence or deficit in our financial energies would so equate unitarily to measures of our matters in lawful jurisdiction. Such assertion would be underpinned and undeniable considering quantum entanglement's warp speed withunder, with time’s parent dimension biding all via the 5th/14th Amendments’ rights against deprivation, constitutionally speaking, upheld by the 9th/10th fastly. 1.3. One may see by the graphs and the excerpt from Wikipedia further below that the current the national debt is currently at about 55% of gross assets, placing any and all aspects of The United States by any measure as 5% moreso recessive on the whole under the preponderance through civil rule. Those figures are more explicit than the simple per-year GDP figures as well, which should stand as irrefutable, direct evidence in a court as a clause of recession with respect to citizen parties or the government ceteris paribus with respect to the sovereign caveat, with the following logic extenuating below.
2. The Extenuation
2.1. Recession's clause should indicate receding guilt on the more economically responsible party, all things being equal with regard to legal tender...as such, sovereign caveat with respect to secession's superluminal gains therefrom the extenuation for recession may occur receding guilt in a positively negative fashion under recession's clause, or in an exotic post-positive superluminal federal capacity by the same token depending on the sovereign angle, with the latter being both most lawful and only so in caveat for recession against recession in progress...which places progress not in caveat as evermore recessive, creating extenuation for recession versus to become negatively positive imaginarily effective. Such caveat of secession from recession's extenuation is known as sovereign immunity under the Article III precedent law and has two parts, sovereign civil immunity and sovereign government immunity, with the latter being a derivation of the former when citizen parties are not in caveat and recession must be upheld otherwise moreso in favor of secession by the government. 2.2. Duly, the burden of proof should rest away from sovereignty, with recession's clause serving as most parent circumstantial evidence towards the insovereign disproving any other further claims falling withunder too. A court may feel compelled to act differently under recession to some altered degree commensurately considering such an analog being same yet though also different, perhaps only shifting the burden of proof in-as-much (assuming extenuation otherwise had been passed), and so may rule in favor of the caveat moreso than normal with regard. Though it should be obvious that any citizen in recession who had allowed such not seeking remedy should be seen as occurring further recession unto themselves, which may be pursued by other citizens and/or the state aggressively as a civil matter. 2.3. Any citizen party lacking proper caveat should succeed against an opposing party lacking same being economically greater towards recession under the extenuation regardless of the civil case, cp (with certain rights to civility already eschewed by recession’s draw). Inclination to relax rules of evidence due to overarching malfeasance in recession should of course only apply when both parties had also passed secession's extenuation with favor toward matter in time. It might be natural to assume that less economically endowed parties would be those who drag us into recession...though perhaps the more civil albeit plausibly deniable approach would be to assume that those in power usurp legitimacy causing such trends. Either could be seen as correct, though federal form exempts any and all from secession's extenuation for progress to be had by either hand, also proving that larger parties would at the very least be just that, depending upon the sovereign quickening of quantum teleportation of information in self-governance (naturally defaulting to government in lieu of civil caveat). 2.4. Such proofing though should help a court to see the overall predominance of secession's extenuation, with that mechanism being profederal (if there were such a thing) and how the caveat tends to have a deeper sway in net, which should help convince a court under such extenuation to allow recession to stand moreso as direct evidence itself and also circumstantial evidence towards other claims in-as-far just for the sake of civility, with perhaps no better logical feature nearby constitutionally speaking, indicating that the extenuation’s fog was likely more to blame for any confusions, and of which would also be expected at least somewhere, considering. 2.5. One may observe again the logic of the extenuation under Article III by the mentioned precedent law of sovereign government immunity for intentional torts against citizens who normally would have been relieved, and then now also consider how such judgment should now tend to work back the other way after such inverted rulings had brought about proper caveating towards the moreso constitutional net gain of secession in recession--that when parties in caveat even so much as could have a claim against the another not the hypocrisy tends to eschew normal law in favor of the deeper extenuation integrally just the same the other way, which then may be used as further derivation in order to abject that recession outside of secession's superluminal caveat probably should be taken at the very least as moreso overt, direct evidence of circumstance negative. 2.6. The courts should also bear in mind that the extenuation should precede caselaw as well, with recession being more major as a whole than individual cases thereunder. Authorities being cited not in caveat against sovereign litigants in caveat may be seen as a confusion of order in operations due to the extenuation able to apply differently toward the caveat for the same causes depending--especially when those cases may not have been fully mature to the caveat in due course, therefore tending to have confusing or twisted arguments attempting to negotiate such territory which could be taken out of context when applied transversely instead of scalarly (with transversity being inherent to the federal scalar...in that recession's majority must imply recessive progress of secession in order to satisfy the hypocrisy of the states existence superseding democracy being sovereign). 2.7. Correlating with the above would be a type of cannibal clause which would exist in federal recession wherein the state courts may begin judging against all parties irregardless, with it being implied that those in caveat would be able to garner ever more extenuated relief duly from the federal courts counter-intuitively in federal support of the caveat in net. In stately recession, alignment of the caveat would of course have been through judgment in favor of the sovereign caveat in recession versus progress not. And in fact, perhaps not one case may exist where the caveat were cited in stately recession by a civilian party, with alignment having occurred solely via government sovereign immunity. One could become confused by this feature when recession would be major due to such all seeming to follow a straight line of recession against progress notwithstanding being the precedent, though upon closer inspection that line would have two spun sides flipping at the halfway mark between stately and federal recession, perhaps blind to caselaw precedent in some instances...and ultimately would serve as a circumstance that could eschew the ability to even cite caselaw against civil sovereignty outright altogether due to such hypothesis showing that an inherent lack thereof still for itself would be entirely possible due to the people being in their government when such caveat is aligned perhaps only by said. Venn Diagrams Showing Overlap of Majority, Corruption
1. Circle A is blue and is at 50% to stand for the democratic majority point. Circle B is the darker greenish color and is at 45% standing for total assets and then C the light green larger circle at 55% standing for total debt (please excuse the designations B and C overlapping on the graph). 2. The Court should note that where the larger green circle overlaps with the blue circle in the crescent on the left side of the graph, which would stand for corruption moreso than not as the majority and debt overlap in democratic law. 3. Net-energy is a known phenomenon observed in the new fusion reactors and is proof that as time moves forwards, energy output may equal greater than input, which under civil rule means that it should for any plaintiff’s purposes, not counting secession’s extenuation for recession. 4. (Secession’s extenuation is the ONLY acceptable extenuation and so to pass tests with regard, one must be in correct caveat to wit.)
Corruption > 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: 100470199 Filing Code Description: Exhibits - Exempt Filing Description: Exhibit M (Amended) Status as of 5/6/2025 7:10 AM CST
Case Contacts
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Sarah Orr Sarah.Orr@oag.texas.gov 5/6/2025 6:33:38 AM SENT
Atty General Anthony.Dolcefino@oag.texas.gov 5/6/2025 6:33:38 AM SENT