Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section

Court of Appeals of Texas·Decided May 27, 2025·No. 15-25-00035-CV·Published

Opinion

ACCEPTED 15-25-00035-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/27/20251 12:00 / 48 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE 15-25-00035-CV CLERK ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals AUSTIN, TEXAS 5/27/2025 12:00:00 AM ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Steven J Stringfellow Texas Comptroller CHRISTOPHER Judiciary A.Section PRINE Clerk 10160 Hwy 242 Asst. Atty. General Anthony Dolcefino Ste 800-4117 <~v~> P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Conroe, TX 77385-4379 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 571-2036 (512) 936-1327 TheFederalExitParty@gmail.com Anthony.Dolcefino@oag.texas.gov ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Motion for Special Exception & Statement (Rule 91) ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Motion for special exception under Rule 91 is hereby made with the

following statement for:

2. As clearly outlined in the Appellant's Reply Brief, the only logical

claim that the Appellee should have against the Appellant would be with respect to

sovereign immunity in-from federal recession (when total debt eclipses half of total

assets).

3. Sovereign immunity is a modern term which applies to secession's

supraliminal refederation (exhibit P.4), just as much as the term drive applies to modern

motor vehicles. The Plaintiff respectfully expects that members of the Court have not

been confusing sovereign immunity with the ancient term that our revolution was

specifically against just as much as they do not drive a team of horses to work

everyday. With that being said, sovereign immunity under the Article III precedent has 2 / 48

been with respect to recession's extenuation for secession's union in superluminal

refederation higher, in order to maintain lawfulness in-with the universal constant at the

speed of matter's energy in light.

4. When a citizen party in a recession is not in caveat for progress--with

secession's federal mechanism in refederation's union being more specific intoward

quantum teleportation's utility for matter's proper re-arrangement by entropy’s obverse

tact of and through adversity--the state has the duty to occur such recession unto them

when and wherever possible, implying that in areas where the law may be interpreted

against them it should, such as tort claims not necessarily codified for; hence the Article

III precedent for sovereign immunity, with government sovereign immunity applying to

cases of citizens not in caveat against the government when recession defaults toward

the government, and with civil sovereign immunity deferring toward civilians in caveat

in cases against other citizen parties not in caveat or against government, the latter of

which would serve them ever moreso then, both of which must be preponderated as

malfeasant at least moreso in recession via the hypocrisy, such should be well-

understood from rules of evidence, common logic notwithstanding.

5. From such logic, one might wonder why the Appellee has been

asserting sovereign government immunity. When recession becomes federal though,

the government may begin asserting sovereign immunity at the state level for any case

against it irregardless due to such matters becoming of a federal nature then from a sort 3 / 48

of cannibal clause. The logic would follow that for cases wherein civilians had passed

test of civil sovereignty against the state in a federal recession and the state had asserted

that their jurisdiction did not apply that those cases would be able to be appealed up the

chain of jurisdiction, gaining tort the whole way due to the fact that however logical it

may be for a malfeasant government in federal recession to cannibalize any party

responsible via the democratic principle when total assets become less than half of total

debt in order to lock in secession as much as possible (just as much as the caveat is

aligned with judgment for civil sovereignty in stately recession)...such must still be

seen as malfeasant notwithstanding, which would be counter-intuitively supported by

the fact that tort gained as each state level jurisdiction of appeal is inclined to accept

these types of causes in order to potentially inure their own sovereignty by then

dismissing them towards federal relief, objectively adding more and more tort to which

ever greater relief may eventually be granted or otherwise legally pursued for such

sovereign civilian litigants after such cases finally reach a federal setting, and/or

provides the necessary reasons for secession to lawfully occur at such points if indeed

sovereignty is ruled against in federal court or these litigants are propelled to the helm

of society. Such momentum would be crucial towards refederation's success and

impossible to avoid from federal government’s necessitation for itself in the first place

no matter how major recession becomes, for it would only tend to right itself evermore

strongly like so, and so we may claim that state courts granting appeals to sovereign 4 / 48

citizen causes and then purposefully dismissing them both against and for the caveat

would tend to be proof that the Appellant's argument would be able to be seen as

correct, supported by recession's clause in affirmation.

6. If such cannibal clause under the extenuation makes perfect sense

then this Court should see it fit to grant the relief requested in this case under special

exception due to the paradox which would exist with respect to the Appellant. The

Court may peruse the records of this case and see that the Appellant is indigent and

verily we can relate to the Court that much of that would be due to the volatility of the

utterly confusing state that federal recession can exact, which can be traced back to the

nature of quantum mechanics (as should anything based in spacetime). Not everyone

knows how to maintain a quantum even keel so to speak, or even what that might entail

in the first place...much less in stormy political high seas...implying expert tact.

7. In exhibit P.3 one may read precisely how quantum mechanics

functions through the mind with respect to law via negative toward positive change and

so understand just how cogent quantum entanglement would be towards our thought

processes in emotions and just how indelible the matter should be in our survival of

mental health. When the matter we are bound to in field of potential is not practiced in

line with principles of net-energy (now measured in the new fusion reactors) inthrough

ourselves with regard to the constitution, the human mind obviously would enter a type

of reflexive reaction in order to struggle for the life giving energy of the infinite life 5 / 48

which our soul must have almost more than we breathe. Just like someone drowning

will enter a phase where their body will reflexively and violently convulse in a final

attempt for air, the human spirit apparently enters a type of phase wherein it may

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

Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section, (Tex. Ct. App. 2025).

Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section (Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.