Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Department of Public Safety
This text of Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Department of Public Safety (Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Department of Public Safety) 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.
Opinion
ACCEPTED 15-24-00024-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 15-24-00024-CV 2/14/2025 5:09 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ CLERK 15th Civil Court of Appeals FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS Texas AUSTIN, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 2/14/2025 5:09:47 AM Steven J Stringfellow Texas Department CHRISTOPHER of Public Safety A. PRINE 10160 Hwy 242 Assistant Attorney General John Sydow Clerk Ste 800-4117 Law Enforcement Division ~v~ Conroe, TX 77385-4379 PO Box 12548 (713) 570-6738 Austin, TX 78711-2548 thefederalexitparty@gmail.com (512) 463-2080 john.sydow@oag.texas.gov ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Motion of Frivolous Claim ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________
1. Motion of frivolous claim is hereby filed with the Court under Chapter 105
Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code.
2. The counterclaim of the state agency in question which this motion deems
frivolous would be the Appellee's claim that sovereign immunity may allow this case to
be dismissed in their favor.
3. The Appellee's claim of sovereign immunity is frivolous due to the fact that
federal law under the FTCA law enforcement proviso in 28 USC 2680(h) holds law
enforcement accountable for certain intentional torts committed against civilians, and
with that having been well-proven in this case by the Appellant; furthermore, the state
allows for relief to be granted for unintentional torts as well, and with this cause
possessing elements of both in an escalating manner, indicating that the malfeasance
was moreso intentional at its root, though still would not necessarily exclude unintentional elements.
4. Sovereign immunity is a legitimate claim under the Article III precedent
law, though the Court should bear in mind that that precedent law of course would be
for civil sovereign immunity, with government sovereign immunity being only one side
and with the other side being civilian sovereign immunity--meaning that such
constitution may apply to the caveat in either direction depending upon the sovereignty,
with it well understood that citizens of this Nation's governmental structure are moreso
sovereign their government ceteris paribus, actually being it, and so the only time that
government may normally supersede itself is when recession's extenuation for
secession prevails, which may only occur under recession's clause towards refederation
higher against itself, being derived from the Second Paragraph of The Declaration of
Independence by the 10th and 14th Amendments.
5. Obvious it should be that failure to hold someone accountable for undue
actions would constitute a type of hypocrisy absent humor at the least and time at most,
with civil rule favoring plaintiffs, and so officials who have more responsibility should
be scrutinized moreso though also given a type of immunity for torts committed within
the scope of office while exercising due care as it were. When that privilege is abused
though there should be extra damages awarded to those affected duly, though when we
factor in the need to secede from recession in order to exact refederation higher,
judgment may indeed perceive those afflicted by such normally unlawful action as
being deserving of it to a certain degree simply due to the caveat...for if a citizen were not in caveat for secession also being in a recession, the law may view such an
individual as having been recessive moreso primarily due to the paramount being of the
people at any and every rate, and so federal theory would requite civil policy to sway in
favor of government in those cases with it being unspoken that such action should A.
tend to align the proper caveat of secession towards the greater net constitution and B.
be able to be sued over at a later date for relief anyway...and with it also understood
that civil policy may shelter the official actor at that time too under recession's clause
the same.
6. Claim that a public in recession would deserve such unlawful action by the
state may apply to those citizens not in caveat as outlined, though also may apply to
those within because the constitution would imply that civilians personally injured by
government who were within caveat who technically would not be at normal fault then
could seek relief and be granted compensation, thereby supporting the caveat just the
same, when "deserving" would take on an even more constitutional meaning associated
with humor in net. In fact, when recession becomes federal when total debt eclipses
half of total assets, government may take the offensive and actively seek to injure any
and all citizen parties that it normally can so that the public may begin to be culled with
respect to the caveat at large, with it being implied that the courts would have seeded
caveat enough during the initial stateful phase of recession and so able to further
separate sovereign from unsovereign by inuring those in caveat through heightened
relief from the courts. 7. Such regard makes much more sense when we regard the evidence in this
case, for there would be no better explanation for the highly unprofessional actions of
these state employees for albeit intentionally and negligently injuring an otherwise law
abiding citizen from an upstanding background no less, which would be a tarnish upon
reputation in general otherwise. Though when we factor in the advanced social
technological apparatus in federal government that is secession's keel, such actions may
actually be interpreted as a type of behavior to be associated with perhaps one of the
most keen and advanced psychosocial traits one could officially possess, giving the
state the impetus to uphold more through relief being granted.
8. As such, the Appellee's counterclaim of government sovereign immunity
would be frivolous against the Appellant's claim of civil sovereign immunity
superseding.
9. Appellant also states that if the action is dismissed or judgment is awarded
to the party, the party intends to submit a motion to the court to recover fees, expenses,
and reasonable attorney's fees. I, Plaintiff Steven J Stringfellow, hereby certify that all of the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of law.
Statefully Submitted,
02/14/2024 ___________________________________________ Dated: ______________
Steven J Stringfellow 10160 Hwy 242 Ste 800-4117 Conroe, TX 77385-4379 thefederalexitparty@gmail.com
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certificate of Service _____________________________
I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished towards:
Law Enforcement Defense Division Office of the Attorney General P.O. Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 463-2080 / Fax (512) 370-9994 john.sydow@oag.texas.gov
Return service to:
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Department of Public Safety, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/steven-j-stringfellow-v-texas-department-of-public-safety-texapp-2025.