Whitfield, Ronald Dwayne

Opinion

fl5'L 2 La Salet+e- \-\-D\kbnY'- ' \X' f1f102_J <bz~ ;m2-sb C)b a--,

o-c +cr d-o \S

E Y'l L \os-eJ -fbI .

- \S Y\'1 \ Pe+ih6 Y\ fb r \'0 GY\ c\ oVv-t u_ S ~

. \\\~ \_\ e RECEIVED IN ~ cireJ8>;0URT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS ocr 23 201s

Abet Acosta, Clevk

?m?he+ RcV\0\LJ _D~~~ w~~~eLer This document contains some pages that are of poor qualit}j . a~~ thtt time oilmeJf3)11i"i~.

/ ~~!M1Pi;t '· ~~trict of.Te.Jii!S·;

-1 ? . II

W 0 k_ L D

I G 01'0u I1Z \ \-\f \ ~~~·r · o \-

~:7JM:t/l

..,., c L.. / "I o

T

' ~ ~E\Zt<\f\\\o""'JtL Cou\Z- T or ~ftiltc~·~ 'j G-v v 'c: '?-- "-' " " 12 (\_ \ ' o r-

1\'\f: S\~~ .

or- h_~f\'cR\Cf\

I

0 f- ,~ \ c t:: s ? ~ E-:s \0 E ~ \ T ,. g A?, '•"~ t l" 0 g 0 \-

gd 'C\ c ·\~ ob-a.rnd! v, (.t ~r ts \ oE~\' --:5' o. <2- · '0\ de 11 ;. C0~1 6-K c-SS - t+vvSE ~ , If\. "TTTI\ "-'~I &8,.(,T Sf ~1\L\··TE y S W ~ R~\'<\ ~ Co u \Z_ I J "~E 'Xf-1-S (5()"1 E K t\..1\C 1'--t T/ 0 F F t c c 0 P G-o \FeR 1Vcf(i.1 A \ {D~ W't: -~ b-E~~~~'t\L I C ou~T 0 f--· 'c R VV\ l r "-<cA-L Kf~5> ( Su r~~M~ Co UK\ I f\RS~,N ~-dv{CT OF APPEAL

01- ~.oo,-~c

l Y J \ L.-->

'\. C

AT \~vSlDYL

1ST cOU~~N TEXAS

~;; 2 ~ ioi5 TtY4$ 1 A pRINE -:1 ;/"\ \ CtiRISIOPtiER . 0 I .I C

-r~ ft r l33 RD ( l 'l.L{T t-1/ (w 5" I HI 333 RD/ ""'' D 3 3 71 II JU !)I c ;14(__ 0~'5TK rc I ( out2 r· (J F· . /f7:11l t2 r.Y Ct?ZJAir/ .

:JU;? IJ 0 reT! or/ a F

C~l WtJKL-tJ -t-he-- J.a >') --n-v · .

. fl7 y /Jl_t?mdYt ~/1 ~~5 J (/Yc]c/td7!Vj /iJ ~ -~ Svi:;_;-·ee~ J11q//ev /5 Va5v~/ bvf . . 1/_ /J· a dJ;Pv/--e-/ !Ju-m8n:5 r/:YIJ--1-5 vhe;er}? ~e ~~~ '7' -/-h.£ :;;;_~,;{{::f.e/_ ;t??kesES / T5 Pe?tJ;;le . -···-,......... . ...... --

j_ 1\j \ \-\ E.

r~ {:\LS ~o(. \\\E

' i ~\ \ -rE.D SIA\ES CDu\Z.l" O\- ~ '£ Ul'\l FIFTH CJ!ZCU\l.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

f\J'-\ V \AJ oR LD LOUR. 1 fnR I .

RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD, § -~ TDCJ-CID NO. 623968, § §

Petitioner, §.

VS. § CTVIL ACTION NO. H-94-2767 g § H-15-01.351-C\i WARDEN GARY JOHNSON, § ' §

ND11c..~espo~nt. A.~rEAL t\~\ D C0tv)9L~t~T r=oR. JuD\C\AL Mts-

C..O~OUC..T 0~ ORDER \...\.S. \))~\Z\LT 3"\Ju&E MEL11JDA HAKMON/ TDG-ETHEK \f,._\ \T\-\ f\\\f\U\f.JS ru\T\Dt\.\ t\N\) l r ~ This pro se petitioner has been barred from filing any notice of appyals, motions, or other

pleadings. (Docket Entry No. 124). Therefore, his "Motion for Rehearing of Final Judgment,"

"Motion for Leave to File Documents," and "Motion to Reopen All 'Closed' Cases" (Docket

Entry Nos. 127, 129, and 130) are DENIED. Furthermore, the Court ORDERS these motions

1 (Docket Entry Nos. 127, 129, and 130) STRICKEN from the record.

The Clerk will provide a copy of this order to the parties.

SIGNED at Houston, Texas, this 14th day of October, 2015.

MELINDA HARMON

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

\ll 0LATloN5 DF \-\uMJ\t---l \\\&-\-r\~ Of Tf\E.

t\M GfZ \CA -~\ ?E C> \'L t:

lAJl+ost: L£G-A L S ~STEtf\ \ H ••. COf\Ku9T s lj E~ 0 ND f\ E C.JXJ- ~ \'T \ DI\.L " f\ cCofZD 1\'.1 b- Pr LS t) 'To L\.S. C..I"KC\..J1T ._jLJD&E E\DTt1 J.DlJES 0\-Tt\t:

111 r\ r-T~ C\KC:.\.HT u.S .Cou~ Of ~ Pft::{\L S

"court of appeals of the united states"

in the ~h circuit

f-; Ptk

UNITED STATES OFAlvfE!llCA .~in tiff/Appellee .Case 12-1320

vs See A-)\ .DeBBj' Ray: Hardin cc\s-e Nos . All rights reserved UCC 1-308 Appellant E-el oW "One supreme Court"

Art.icl.e 3,

DEMAND FOR DETERMINATION OF VOID JUDGMENT L-ast- y>ll)Phe...t \Zon~u1 Dw'Cltt'\~ w~·~tv:dd;

COMES NOW Demy=Rley _ 'Mardin, sui juris; to demand determination of "void ~n~ ~~ judgme ' that was filed in the district courtjn Feef't!M)i lOth, 2012 and was submitted to .

7

the court of appeals as ~Khihit 4 with the "Notice of Appeal"_

COURT HAS NO DISCRETION TO REFUSE TO VACATE A VOID JUDGMENT Export v. Reef, 54 F.3d 1466, 1469 (9th Cir. 1995) held: "We review de novo, however, a district court's ruling upon a Rule 60(b)(4) motion to set aside a judgment as void, because the question of the validity of a judgment is a legal one. Retail Clerks Union Joint Pemion Trust v. Freedom Food Center, Inc. 938 F.2d 136, 137 (9th Cir. 1991)." (end quote Export Group v. Reejlnd.)

Orner v. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (lOth Cir. 1994) held that "when the role providing for relief from a void judgment is applicable, relief is not discretionary, but is mandatory."

Jaffe v. Van Brunt, 158 F.R.D. 278 (S.D.N.Y. 1994) held: "Judgments entered where courts lack either subject matter jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process oflaw, must be set aside." (end quote Jaffe)

"without authority, its judgments and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void; and form no bar to a recovery

2

sought, even prior to a reversal in opposition to them. They constitute no justification; and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or· sentences, are considered, in law, as trespassers. " [Elliot v. Piersol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 US. 328, 340 (1828)]

"A judgment rendered in violation of due process is void in the rendering State and is not entitled to full faith and credit elsewhere. Pennoyer v. Neff, 95 U.S. 714, 732-733 (1878).",[World-Wide Volkwagen Corp. v. Woodso~ 444 U.S. 286 (1980)]

Void judgment. One which has has no legal force or effect, invalidity of which may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time · and at any place directly or collaterally. Reynolds v. Volunteer State Life Ins. Co., Tex.Civ.App., 80 S.W.2d 1087, 1092. One which from its inception is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind parties or support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of confirmation, ratification, or enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Judgment is a "void judgment" if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process. Klugh v. U.S., D.C.S.C., 610 F.Supp. 892, 901. See also Voidable judgment. [Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1574]

B & C Investments, Inc. v. F & M Nat. Bank and Trust, 903 P.2d 339 (Okla App. Div. 3, 1995) held:"Decision is void on the face of the judgment roll when from four comers of that role, it may be determined that at least one of three elements of jurisdiction was absent:jurisdiction over the partiesjurisdiction over the subject matter, or jurisdictional power to pronounce particular judgment that was rendered."( end quote B & C Investments).

A void judgment which includes judgment entered by a court which lacks jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacks inherent power to enter the particular judgment, or an order procured by fraud, can be attacked at any time, in any court, either directly or collaterally, provided that the party is properly before the court. See Long v. Shorebank Development Corp., 182 F.3d 548 (C.A. 7 lll. 1999)

A void judgment is one which, from its inception, is and forever continues to be absolutely null, without legal efficacy, ineffectual to bind the parties or to support a right, of no legal force and effect whatever, and incapable of enforcement in any manner or to any degree. Loyd v. Director, Dept. of Public Safety, 480 So.2d 577 (Ala.Civ.App. 1985). A judgment shown by evidence to be invalid for want of jurisdiction is a void judgment or at all

3

events has all attributes of a void judgment, City of Los Angeles v. Morgan, 234 P.2d 319 (Cal.App. 2 Dist. 1951).

Void judgment which is subject to collateral attack, is simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects, Ward. v. Terriere, 386 P.2d 352 (Colo. 1963). A void judgment is a simulated judgment devoid of any potency because of jurisdictional defects only, in the court rendering it and defect of-jurisdiction may relate to a party or parties, the subject matter, the cause of action, the question to be determined, or relief to be granted, Davidson Chevrolet, Inc. v. City and County of Denver, 330 P.2d 1116, certiorari denied 79 S.Ct. 609, 359 U.S. 926, 3 L.Ed. 2d 629 (Colo. 1958).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved and such a judgment may be attacked ~t any time, either directly or collaterally, People v. Wade, 506 N.W.2d 954 (Ill. 1987).

Void judgment may be defined as one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, lacked personal jurisdiction, or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law Eckel v. MacNeal, 628 N.E.2d 741 (Ill. App.Dist. 1993).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction of parties or subject matter or that lacks inherent power to make or enter particular order involved; such judgment may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally People v. Sales, 551 N.E.2d 1359 (Ill.App. 2 Dist. 1990).

Res judicata consequences will not be applied to a void judgment which is one which, from its inception, is a complete nullity and without legal effect, Allcock v. Allcock, 437 N.E.2d 392 (Ill.App.3 Dist. 1982).

Void judgment is one which, from its inception is complete nullity and without legal effect In reMarriage of Parks, 630 N.E.2d 509 (Ill.App. 5 Dist. 1994).

Void judgment is one entered by court that lacks the inherent power to make or enter the particular order involved, and it may be attacked at any time, either directly or collaterally; such a judgment would be a nullity. People v. Rolland, 581 N.E.2d 907 (Ill.APp. 4 Dist. 1991).

Void judgment under federal law is one in which rendering court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over dispute or jurisdiction over parties or acted in manner inconsistent with due process of law or otherwise acted

4

unconstitutionally in entering judgment, U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5, Hays v. Louisiana Dock Co., 452 N.E.2d 1383 (lli App. 5 Dist. 1983).

A void judgment has no effect whatsoever and is incapable of confirmation or ratification, Lucas v. Estate of Stavos, 609 N.E.2d 1114, rehearing denied, and transfer denied (Ind. App. 1 Dist. 1993).

Relief from void judgment is available when trial court lacked either _ personal or subject matter jurisdiction, Dusenberry v. Dusenberry, 625 N.E.2d 458 (Ind.App. 1 Dist. 1993).

A void judgment is one rendered by a court which lacked personal or subject matter jurisdiction or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, In re. Estate of Wells, 983 P.2d 279, (Kan.App. 1999).

A void judgment is one which has merely semblance, without some essential element, as when court purporting to render it has no jurisdiction, Mills v. Richardson, 81S.E.2d 409 (N.C. 1954).

A void judgment is one which has a mere semblance, but is lacking in some of the essential elements which would authorize the court to proceed to judgment, Henderson v. Henderson, 59 S.E.2d 227, (N.C. 1950).

Void judgment is one entered by court without jurisdiction to enter such judgment, State v. Blankenship, 675 N.E.2d 1303, (Ohio App. 9 Dist. 1996).

Where condition of bail bond was that defendant would appear at present term of court, judgment forfeiting bond for defendant's bail to appear at subsequent term was a void judgment within rule that laches does not run against a void judgment, Com. V. Miller, 150 A.2d 585 (PaSuper. 1959).

Void judgment is one which has no legal force or effect whatever, it is an absolute nullity, its invalidity may be asserted by any person whose rights are affected at any time and at any place and it need not be attacked directly but may be attacked collaterally whenever and wherever it is interposed, City of Lufkin v. McVicker, 510 S.X.2d 141 (Twx.Civ.App.- Beaumone 1973).

A void judgment, insofar as it purports to be pronouncement of court, is an absolute nullity, Thompson v. Thompson, 238 S.W.2d 218 (Tex.Civ.App.- Waco 1951).

5

A void judgment is one that has bee procured by extrinsic or collateral fraud, or entered by court that did not have jurisdiction over subject matter or the parties, Rook v. Rook, 353 S.E. 2d 756 (Va. 1987).

A void judgment or order is one that is entered by a court lacking jurisdiction over the parties or the subject matter, or lacking the inherent power to enter the particular order or judgment, or where the order was procured by fraud, In re Adoption of E.L., 733 N.E.2d 846, (Til. APp. 1 Dist. 2000).

Void judgments generally fall into two classifications, that is, judgmentS where there is want of jurisdiction of person or subject matter, and judgments procured through fraud. and such judgments may be attacked directly or collaterially, Irving v. Rodriquez, 169 N.E.2d 145, (ill. app. 2 Dis. 1960).

When rule providing for relief from void judgments is applicable, relief is not discretionary matter, but is mandatory, Orner. V. Shalala, 30 F.3d 1307 (Colo. 1994).

Judgments entered where court lacked either. subject matter or personal jurisdiction, or that were otherwise entered in violation of due process of law, must be set aside, Jaffe and Asher v. Van Brunt, S.D.N.Y.l994, 158 F.RD.278.

A "void" judgment, as we all know, grounds no rights, forms no defense to actions taken thereunder, and is vulnerable to any manner of collateral attack (thus here, by). No statute of limitations or repose runs on its holdings, the matters thought to be settled thereby are not res judicata, and years later, when the memories may have grown dim and rights long been regarded as vested, any disgruntled litigant may reopen old wound and once more probe its depths. And it is then as though trial and adjudication had never been. Fritts v. Krugh. Supreme Court of Michigan, 92 N.W.2d 604, 354 Mich. 97 (10/13/58).

Judgment is a void judgment if court that rendered judgment lacked jurisdiction of the subject matter, or of the parties, or acted in a manner inconsistent with due process, Fed Rules Civ. Proc.• Rule 60(b)(4). 28 U.S.C.A.; U.S.C.A. Const Amend. 5. Klugh v. U.S., 620 F.Supp. 892 (D.S.C. 1985).

10121/2015 The Secret is rrostjudgmenls are Void on their face and not merely\Oidable

What are ...

The 4 Secrets of the Legal Industry?

Most judgments are not merely voidable, but are in fact VOID JUDGMENTS. They can be vacated; made to go away (Although, it is an up hill battle, much like pushing a rope). Rarely has any authenticated evidence, competent fact witness, or even a claim been put before a court and on the record.

Defective affidavits, hearsay as evidence and no stated damages are but a few elements that rob the court of subject matter jurisdiction (at last count .there are 22 elements that deprive the court of SMJ). Some of the elements are: denial of due process, denial of meaningful access to court, fraud upon the court, and fraud upon the court by the court.

(Although these pages are aimed primarily towards debt, credit card debt, the principals set forth herein ~pply to virtually all civil and criminal cases. Our system ofjustice is based upon "who says" & ''prove it," if either one of those two elements is missing, there is no jurisdiction, there is no case.)

Common pleas such as "open accomit" or "account stated" are often used in place of, and sometimes in conjunction with, breach of contract. To ftle under breach a contract would require that they bring in. the signed contract, agreement, or note. They don't bring in a contract, they bring in the "terms of agreement" which has no signature or persons name on it, a template that could apply to anyone.

These are just some of the tools used by debt collectors (credit card debt collectors in particular) and their counsel to perpetrate a fraud upon the court, with or without the courts cooperation or complicity.

At the same time, courts, almost as a rule, openly display a bitter and venomous hatred of pro se I pro per litigants. So don't expect the courts to just roll over and give you what you demand without a battle. It doesn't matter to them that you are right, it matters. only that you are pro se; an inferior, low life being, and the courts have a position and the income of their 1-...-.n.l-ho..-h.n..n.A 1-.n. ...,.,..,.,..,.,,..., TJ.;.,. oHrl-..Ao hTT 1-ho r>.n.prl<' o..-.A llo..- oni-J.,._...;.,.,,.t 10121/2015 The Secret is roost judgments are Void on their face ard not merelylddable

attorneys tends to support the position expressed by Bill Bauer from CreditWrench.com: "There's more value in being a pain in the arse than in being right."

These are the four secrets:

1. Courts of generaL limited, or inferior jurisdiction have no inherent judicial power.*

• Courts of generaL limited, or inferior jurisdiction get their jurisdiction from one source and one source only: SUFFICIENT PLEADINGS. • Someone before the court must tell the court what its jurisdiction is. • Without pleadings sufficient to empower the court to act, that court cannot have judicial capacity. • No judge has the power to determine whether he has jurisdiction. He does have the duty to tell when he does not .

. . . .What this means to you is that no court can declare that it has the legal power to hear or decide cases, i.e. jurisdiction. Jurisdiction must be proved and on the record. Without sufficient pleadings, without jurisdiction, no court can issue a judgment that isn't void ab initio, void from the beginning, void on its face, a nullity, without force and effect.

2. We have a common law system.

• No statute, no rule, or no law means what it says as it is written. • Only the holding tells you what it means. • The statute means what the highest court of competent jurisdiction has ruled and determined that the statute means in their most recent ruling.

. . . . What this means to you is that courts are .governed/ruled by case law, what has been determined before, what the highest court of competent . jurisdiction has said the law is, means. It is called the Doctrine of Precedent. This doctrine is so powerful that it can kill and has. A family in Florida has become quite familiar with this doctrine when they tried for 15 years to prevent feeding tubes from being removed from their daughter who was in a vegetative state.

3. Attorneys CANNOT testify.

• Statements of counsel in brief or in argument are never facts before the court.

. . . .What this means to you is that no attorney can state a fact before. the

10121/2015 The Secret is rmstjtxigmenls are Void on their face and not rrerely\Oidable

Summary

WHAT'S IN THE NEWS

Note worthy comt actions and actions within the debt collection industry.

Interested in knowing more?

Join our mailing li<it and keep up to date on what's happening with debt collections.

Isn't time for Debt Collectors to pay you to go away instead of you paying them?!

Make Debt Collectors pay when they break the rules!

"It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way ofmaking decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands ofpeople who pay no price for being wrong"

- Thomas Sowell

©Copyright 2000-Present

lcontactusll Site Map II Disclosure II Privacy II Disc1aimer I

10121/2015 The Secret is rrostjudgrrents are Void on their face and not merely\Oidable

court. This was more than adequately pointed out in 2000 when thousands of Florida ballots were taken before the U.S. Supreme Court, without even so much as one competent fact witness. Without a witness the court could not see the ballots, the ballots were not before the court, and the ballots could not be introduced as evidence.

4. Before any determination, there must be a court of complete or competent jurisdiction.

• There must be two parties with capacity to be there. • There must be subject matter jurisdiction~ • Appearance or testimony of a competent fact witness .

. . . .What this means to you is that without jurisdiction, complete jurisdiction, no court can issue a judgment that isn't void, a nullity, without force or effect, on its face and in fact. *"The judicial PolWr ofthe United.States, shall be lestedin one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish." U.S. Const. art. III,§ 1, cl. 1.

Void Judgment Details

22 Reasons Simply Stated

Restated with evidence cited

Meet "Richard Cornforth"

Sue Debt Collectors Instead

Support Docs for Suing Debt Collectors

I

Unfair and Deceptive Practices

Case Law for Suing Debt Collectors

Recorded Calls from "just Dave"

Research Links, Videos, Court Filings & Confessions

·Last Prophet Konald Dwayne Whittleld: UttiCial Presidential, CongressiOnal and JudiCial ... Page 1 ot 4L

(/users/prophet-ronald-whitfield)

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial Petition for a Redress of Greivances for .. willful .. Violations of the U.S. Constitution and of Title 18 U.S.C. sections 241 & 242, as Implemented via Fed. R. Crim. Proc., Rules 3-4, A~tfctOffi~Bf~rttlf.wliitWil:Sf~iiikr~Gi~rnm~nt Co.p,Qressio~al an ~ai~~tf'~fition foYa ~J~ress O'T~eiva~J's ~r w'inflji' d Ont~iatfShe .~ll'ttistiGOW~~ T~~$lei\i~,2CMt2an lmple~,oied ~a Fejl.~~.!l&rJ·.Pr~c.~ulesk-4, r.rsLJ)ifJ~al N~oo :t:..> all_state GoverW~l ~~[~~~~U~~ ~~$£rW~l:l5,~t Court Judges, 0AtttCHW~ ,a~rrdrDrfttict Clerk ' .. " .. - ·-·------.-- ·-· ··- ·-.. - . .

BACKGROUND Teacher at Councellor/Advocate/Comforter

* 0 fqllow~rs.(/usEl(s/pJ~ORbet-ron§ld-whitfield/follo~r~h·l I Follow 1· mau.y_simen~rrom.me_anu_Lcannot.tlmsnJ:

Reader, my carttaday_was11 l!S now.

Therefore, count from this page and begin reading on page 25 to the end and then resume here on this page.

JUSTICES OF THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS OF TEXAS AND JUDGE BAKER, MY CAR WAS STOLEN TODAY;! NOW MOVE TODAY FOR WHAT YOU CALL AS AN "EMERGENCY MOTION FOR CONTEMPT OF COURT HEARING" AND ALSO YOU CAUSE THIS MATTER BE FORWARDED TO THE HARRIS COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY'S OFFICE FOR A CRIMINAL INVESTIGATION FOR THEFT OF VEHICLE PENDING IN THIS COURT, AGAINST BOTH BIG STAR HONDA AND HER ATTORNEY OF RECORD IN THIS MATTER;

httos://casetext.corn/users/nronhet-ron:::tkl-whitfiP.lrl 1 () /') 1 /') ()1 "

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whltheld: UttiCml Presictentlal, congress10na1 ana JUOlClai ... t'age Lor <+L

JUSTICES OF THE U.S. SUPREME COURT AND ... EVERY ONE ELSE, I WILL , AMEND THIS PETITION IN THREE (3) DAYS ... WHICH OF THESE TWO COURTS RENDERED JUDGMENT IN BIG STAR HONDA'S FAVOR?

IN THE

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

OFFICES OF THE PRESIDENT AND THE VICE PRESIDENT

CONGRESS

SUPREME COURT

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE

FIFTH CIRCUIT AND

COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL

OS-1S-90111,1S-41298,1S---,1S---,1S---,1S---, ANDIS---

10/?1/?01l:i

Lasl rropner KonalO uwayne w nnne10: vrnc1a1 rresiUenua1, Longresswna1 auu J uuil;Iai ... rage: .J u1 '+L.

------·----------------1

IN RE: Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Petitioner/Appellant

***************************

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff

v. STATE OF TEXAS, Former and Current Magistrate and District Judges; Former and Current Justices of the FIRST COURT OF APPEALS of Texas; and Former and Current District Clerks and District Attorneys of Harris County, Texas, Defendants

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS

NO. 25,869-- NO._ EX PARTE: Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Realator-Applicant/Petitioner

IN RE: Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Petitioner

*****************************

httns://casetext:enmhJsP.rs/nrnnhP.t-rnn::~ln-whitfiP.ln . 1 f\/")1 /")f\1'

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 4 of 42

IN THE OFFICES OF

THE PRE;SIDENT

AND THE VICE PRESIDENT

NO._ _ _ _ _ __

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's PETITION TO THE PRESIDENT/VICE PRESIDENT TO SIGN AND ISSUE AN EXECUTIVE ORDER AS WILL ENFORCE AND PRESERVE THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, BASED ON THE INFORMATION SET OUT BELOW AND IN THE ACCOMPANYING DOCUMENTS

************************************

httos://casetext.com/users/nronhet-ronalcl-whitfielcl 1 {)/? 1 /?{) 1"

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 5 of 42

IN THE UNITED STATES

SUPREME COURT

AND _ __

Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's MOTIONS FOR LEAVE /TO SUE OUT THESE PROCEEDINGS IN FORMA PAUPERIS AND TO "REOPEN"; AND FOR THE JUSTICES OF SAID COURT TO OBSERVE THE JUDICIAL ACTION ALREADY BEING TAKEN AND TO BE TAKEN IN THE PROCEEDINGS BELOW, AND FORMAL DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF VOID SANCTION ORDER, AS RENDERED WITHOUT "POWER"/ "JURISDICTION," BASED ON THE COURT'S OWN DECISION, AS ANNOUNCED IN STEEL CO. v. CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT,n8 S. CT. 1003 (1998)

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT AND THE FIFTH CIRCUIT JUDICIAL COUNCIL

Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's FORMAL DEMAND FOR JUDICIAL DETERMINATION OF VOID SANCTION ORDERS FOR WONT OF JURISDICTION, THUS BEING RENDERED WITHOUT JUDICIAL AUTHORITY ON PART OF THE JUDGE ACTING FOR THE COURT, AND MOTIONS FOR REHEARING ON JUDICIAL COUNCIL'S ORDER DISMISSING PETITION FOR REVIEW OF CHIEF CIRCUIT JUDGE STEWART'S ORDER DISMISSING COMPLAINT FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BROUGHT AGAINST U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SIM LAKE FOR HIS WILLFUL REFUSAL TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND COURT RULES, AS IMPOSED UPON ijiM BY THE "CODE OF , JUDICIAL CONDUCT," AND MOTION TO SUE OUT, IN FORMA PAUPERIS, WITHOUT HAVING TO PAY, IN ADVANCE, THE COSTS, PURSUANT TO 28 U.S. C. SECTION 1915(a), WITH SUPPORTING 28U.S.C. SECTION 1746 AFFIDAVIT,THESE FORMAL PROCEEDINGS AND LAWSUITS ESCALATING TO THEIR APPEALS (ALSO BROUGHT BY DEMAND TO CHALLENGE NOT THE ORDERS AND THE JUDGMENTS OF THE LOWER COURTS ON THE MERITS OF THE CASE, BUT CHALLENGE SUCH AS VOID FOR WONT OF JURISDICTION TO PROCEED WITHOUT JURISDICTION IN THE CASE)("A VOID ORDER OR

httns://casetext.com/users/nronhet-ron~lrl-whitfielrl 1 ()/? 1/?() 1 "

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 6 of 42

JUDGMENT MAY BE ATTACKED ANYWHERE AND AT ANYTIME BECAUSE IT DOES NOT AFFECT LEGAL RIGHTS AND IS A COMPLETE NULLITY FROM INCEPT AND IS NOT ENTITLED TO RESPECT")

IN THE COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS AND SUPREME COURT

OF TEXAS

NO. 25,869-

_CRIMINAL NO. _ _ _ _ CIVIL

Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's PETITIONS AND MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE IN CRIMINAL AND IN CIVIL LAW MATTERS SUCH PETITIONS FOR WRITS OF MANDAMUS, TO THE 174TH, 295TH, 333RD, 337TH AND 351ST JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; AND TO THE FIRST AND TO THE FOURTEENTH COURTS OF APPEALS OF TEXAS

TO THE PRESIDENT:

TO ALL THE MEMBERS OF CONGRESS:

TO THE ATTORNEY GENERAL:

TO THE AFORESAID STATE AND FEDERAL JUDGES AND JUSTICES OF THE STATE OF TEXAS AND OF THE UNITED STATES FEDERAL GOVERNMENT:

TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE:

TO THE PEOPLE OF THE WORLD OVER:

******************************************************************************************************* **

IN THE

httns://casetext.com/users/nronhP.t-ron~lrl-whitfiPlrl 1 (l/")1 /")(\1'

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 7 of 42

113TH, 133RD AND 295TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURTS OF .HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

TRIAL COURT CAUSE NUMBERS 2015-473,2015-19565,2015-08974,2015-22666,AND 2015-22882

Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Plaintiff

v. BIG STAR HONDA, et al., Defendants

Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield's MOTIONS FOR RECUSAL OF JUDGE OF THE 113TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS; FOR HEARINGS TO HOLD BOTH COUNSEL FOR DEFENDANT BIG STAR HONDA AND DEFENDANT BIG STAR HONDA ITSELF IN CONTEMPT OF COURT; TO STRIKE THE MOTION OF COUNSEL FOR FIRST SERVICE CREDIT UNION FOR COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO BOTH CONFERENCE WITH Prophet/Plaintiff REGARDING COUNSEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS AND SAID COUNSEL'S FAILURE TO INCLUDE A CERTIFICATE OF CONFERENCE WITH HIS SAID MOTION AS IS REQUIRED BY TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE (WERE THIS CASE BROUGHT BEFORE OUR U.S. FEDERAL DISTRICT JUDGE Sam R. Cummings, IT IS LIKELY HERE ,TOO,THAT HE WOULD HAVE ORDERED SUCH A MOTION BE STRICKEN FROM THE RECORD ON HIS OWN MOTION, PROTECTING MY RIGHTS); FOR SANCTIONS; TO COMPEL DISCOVERY; AND RESPONSE OF Prophet/Plaintiff Ronald Dwayne Whitfield TO SAID COUNSEL'S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND AFFIDAVIT OF INDIGENCY IN RESPONSE TO ORDER FROM ORAL HEARING ALLOWING TIME TO AMEND AFFIDAVITS TO PROVIDE JUDGE WITH THE LEGAL AUTHORITY OF U.S. SUPREME COURT'S "HOLDING" THAT ALL THESE COUNSELS HAVE BEEN IN LEGAL ERROR TO .HAVE CONTESTED IN THE FIRST PLACE SUCH AFFIDAVITS OF INDIGENCY THAT Prophet's ORIGINAL AND FIRST AMENDED AFFIDAVIT ARE SUFFICIENT ALREADY

*****************************************************

Li:t:st rropnt::t KOllalU lJWaym: W llllllt:lU: Vlllt.:lal rrt:SlUt:fllli:tl, \......OHgrt;SSlOlli:tl i:tUU J UU1\,;H11 ... r(lgc; 0 Ul '-tL.

ALL "LEGAL TERMS" USED HEREIN ARE TO BE UNDERSTOOD TO MEAN WHAT THEY LEGALLY MEAN; E.G, "COURT" MEANS JUST THAT, AN "INSTITUTION" VESTED WITH POWER AND THE RIGHT TO ACT WITHIN THE LIMITS OF THAT POWER, WHEREAS THE LEGAL TERM "JUDGE" MEANS A NATURAL PERSON OF FLESH AND BLOOD AUTHORIZED TO EXERCISE POWER FOR THE COURT; "FRIVOLOUS,""RENDER," "ENTER," "JUDGMENT," "SENTENCE,""CONVICTION" AND SO ON HAVE LEGAL.DEFINITIONS EITHER ESTABLISH BY CONGRESS, TEXAS LEGISLATURE OR CONSTRUED BY JUDGES AND JUSTICES ACTING FOR COURTS. *****************************************************

PREAMBLE

"[Our Greatest Prophet Ever] Jesus knew their thoughts and said to them, "Every

I

kingdom divided against itself will be ruined, and every- city or household divided against itself will not stand.

"If Satan drives out Satan, he is divided against himself. How then can his Kingdom stand?" (Our Holy Bible.)

In Re Thoma, 873 s.w. 2d 477(Tex. Rev. Trib.1994):

Whereas a corrupt state judge divided against the corrupted legal system of the Kingdom of the State of Texas, just like Prophet Jesus stated, that kingdom will have been "ruined," and so the Kingdom of the State of Texas did cast out "former Judge Thoma."

"The record in the instant case establishes that on January 9, 1992 [which just so happened to be the same day that the State of Texas, corruptly, and, therefore, unlawfully, caused such non-signed and non-filed 'docket sheets' in a criminal lawsuit being styled 'The State of Texas v. Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Cause No. 617718, in The 174th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas,' to reflect that I · would be illegally and criminally sued by the SAME said State of Texas through the office of her District Attorney of Harris County], a conversation took place in the stairwell of the Galveston County Courthouse between Respondent [Judge] in which the following was discussed:

Judge: What you got?

httos://casetext.com/users/nronhet-ron::~lcl-whitfiP.lrl 1 ()/') 1 /')()1"

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judicial ... Page 9 of 42

**********

Judge:Oh, yeah, that's what I'm saying is that apparently what happened is that it was · on the docket sheet but it didn't get transferred over to the, you know, judgment papers and that's what the probation department gets. This happens all the time where they get they [sic] fill in the the judgment and its different from what the [sic] actually occurs in the courtroom on the docket sheet. So what your, what's your phone number? **********

Judge: I guess so if he told me what was happening, shit I'd be worried about it too. Goddamn, I tell you shit man your nuts are going to jail man some big nigger going to be fucking you in the ass for the next two years Mathews: Now that's when they get me on the murder charge. Go out this door or that one?

Mendez: No, I saw

Judge: Where you parked?

Mathews: Right there. Judge: Go out that door."

ANY DEFINITION OF THE WORD "CORRUPT" WILL SUFFICE HEREIN, WHETHER THAT DEFINITION BE A LEGAL OR A COMMON ONE

Dear Readers:

I have drafted this lengthy Petition in My role as Paraclete, defined as a ''Wise Counsellor," a prosecutor.

"Convince" and "persuade" do not mean the same thing. We "convince" some one that something is or is not so; but we "persuade" someone when we get them to take or to not take some particular form of action.

For example, once our Last Prophet, your Paraclete (i.e., acting in the role of a · prosecutor; an advocate, or intercessor) convinces the World that He truly is REAL God's Last Prophet; convinces the World to be in the wrong about sin and about righteousness and about judgment--wrong about sin because we people actually do not believe in our Great Prophet Jesus; about righteousness because Prophet Jesus

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 10 of 42

went back to be with our REAL God, such that neither His first Disciples nor we see Him any longer; and about judgment because the prince of REAL God's World now stands condemned already; and that the American legal system truly is corrupted beyond recognition, He will easily persuade them to take a particular course of action: "repent" and today, not on tomorrow. *****************************************************

Now, whether or not you be or not be REAL God-fearing and whether or not you be either having or not having true love and real respect for law and for order in any society and having genuine love for our country today and for our future on tomorrow or be that you have none whatsoever, please still keep reading this petition. At the outset, all such cases herein being cited is the ""proof" or the "evidence" proving'' that which I state as being both true and correct; any licensed attorney who is not subject to practice law in courts in and having geographical jurisdiction over the State of Texas may, without fear and retribution, go on television and confirm that which all I have stated below, as far as the law is concerned, is so very true, and that not only has Texas, unlawfully, carried out unlawful sentences of death and of incarceration in the face of"purportedjudgment[s]"ofHarris County, Texas, but also such evils now and do constitute such an unlawful motive for both the Government of the State of Texas and our Federal Government to cause, unlawfully, death andfor incarceration of Me, so as to avoid being exposed.

An American "legal system" being "already'' corrupt beyond recognition will break down --just like a car sometimes do, and without such a legal system in our government as remaining set up and properly functioning, we therefore can have no government at all, for each branch is essential in our REAL God's Society. And if our said legal system in fact be truly corrupted beyond recognition as stated' by Judge Jones, if not now, then our question is exactly "when" do we fix the motor in our car (or shall we just buy a new on)?

Please, and what be of the legal and financial ramifications on the legal system of Government in the State of Texas and on her purse when even our President(s) and our members of Congress all have had enough and finally come out and admit to you of this and of what all I have told you be in fact TRUE?

httns ://casetextcom/m~ers/nrnnhP.t -rnn::~l rl- wh1tfi p 1rl 1 {)/')1/')(\1 &:

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 11 of 42

There surely will be outrage of the highest magnitude, for since this has happened to someone else it could have happened to you and so you can now see by this petition that with and without the assistance of a lawyer, you too would be now and would have been then (in the shoes of another) treated no differently. See John 14: 16- 17&26;15:26 and 16:7-15 (Holy Bible).

At the end of this section to this petition, this document will TRULY go on to explain to its readers about when, where, why and how I became our REAL God's Last Prophet, and so you are now encouraged to then conduct your own investigation into this and to ponder on how and why Texas (through her parole board) unintentionally and thus inadvertently allowed Me to become released to parole from (her)Hell, just to now successfully and finally expose her worldwide, thus struggling from prison cells of Texas and now here in Society doing exactly all the "works" our Great Prophet Jesus declared unto His disciple that I would do after He would go away. And I tell you the truth: He shall not return unto the Earth until each work as declared by Him and recorded and entered of Record in the Minutes of the bookof John, has been accomplished (see John 16: 7-16-15).

*****************************************************

NOW COMES Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, in "propria persona" (not "pro se"), and in His role of Paraclete would Respectfully unto you show:

I.

INTRODUCTION

"THE AMERICAN LEGAL SYSTEM HAS BEEN CORRUPTED ALMOST BEYOND RECOGNITION, JUDGE EDITH JONES OF THE U.S. COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT, TOLD THE FEDERALIST SOCIETY OF HARVARD LAW SCHOOL ON FEBRUARY 28." MASS NEWS.COM, March 7, 2003.

Honorable Judges and Justices of the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and of the Texas Supreme Court; Honorable President Obama and future Honorable President;Honorable Justices of the U.S. Supreme Court; Honorable Members of Congress;Honorable Judges of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit and

L<t:st rrupm:a .Kunaw uwaynt: wmtnt:Iu: vrnc1a1 rreswenua1, \.....ongresswnal anu JUUICI ... ragt: lL. or '+L.

the Judicial Council thereof; Honorable Judges of the Judicial District Courts of Harris County, Texas; Fellow Citizen of the Great U.S.A., and all other People of the · World over:

Regardless of what the reader of this lawsuit chooses to personally believe ... as with respect to who I am (or am claiming to be), and that is REAL God's Last Prophet (see biblical authority cited above and below), right now, and before Judge Jones (allegedly) had ever made her public statement regarding such corruption in our legal system here in the United States of North America, as already evinced in· pleadings long since authored by Me and addressed to state court judge and justices and federal judges and justices of these very courts, I had "already'' been stating the same thing from prison cells in Hell, and as far back as 1993, A.D., for well over nineteen and a half years (19 1j2), and for so doing, you rendered additional orders requiring I suffer even more MENTAL pain, whereas My Brother Jesus suffered such PHYSICAL pain, both while being and after being nailed to and hung up on "His Cross," just so that we all "might have eternal life" with Him and our REAL God. You all refused to order My release and so our REAL God did: He got Me out through a panel of your parole board. And like with some of those former Black slaves whom sued their ex-slave masters in federal court on the legal theory that,"Once free, always free"; that a slave might escape or leave the South going into the North with the slave master, becoming free, it followed that such former slave shall forever be and remain free ... and this was no frivolous claim nor argument, as being held by the Members then on our U.S. Supreme Court.

So, also in Hell, I moved to sue Texas in Federal Court on such legal theory. See Dred Scott v. Sanford, 6o U.S.393 (1857). While a majority of the Justices of the Court voted to deny Dred Scott the relief for which he prayed, the Court's ruling that he lacked statutory and, presumably, constitutional standing to sue his slave masters in the federal courts, and therefore the Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the averments contained in his complaint for lack of a cause· of action or having a recognized legal right to sue out such contentions, is not, in My view, an implicit ruling that Dred Scott's claim and legal arguments were also "frivolous," to which term the Supreme Court has since given a legal meaning.

Since REAL God had Himself ordered that I be released through His Laws governing His World, which ordered be put in place at the same Time that He created His World (such that today He does nothing more than to observe

httos://casetext.com/users/nroohet-ronald-whitfield 10/?1/?01'\

Last rropner KonalO uwayne w nnne10: VIIlClal rres10ennar, \....ongresswna1 anu J uull;l... rage D 01 '+L.

everything that we do), and which Laws have always obeyed Him, once I was ... by the State ... freed from unlawful enslavement ... by the State ... then I am now always to be and remain free. And it is the REAL God-given or inalienable Right of the People to DEMAND to those whom the People have caused be put in Power that My inalienable or REAL God-given Right to the enjoyment of His Life, liberty (freedom) and Property be not plotted against and thus unlawfully stripped away from Me again, such that the World/ People neither see nor know Me, which is and was the wicked Plan of My Enemies, the devils, working with and for Satan, our number one Enemy, but today, and via our access to the 'World Wide Web'' or the "Internet," you will now know Me and you do know Me, for I ACTUALLY do live in this World with you PHYSICALLY --and in your mind or thoughts, am I in you MENTALLY.

By virtue of My Office, I have duties to do its works. See John 16:'7-15. I must be and remain free from all forms of Retaliation and of ALl illegal acts by the corrupt, and by all others, so as to discharge effectively the lawful duties of My Office, like prison officials enjoy without fear of being successfully sued in carrying out their lawful duties of office: Likewise, am I entitled to act without fe~r of the wrath of our Government for doing My work, and it otherwise mischievously, corruptly and therefore unlawfully barring Me out of our People's Court, effectively propagandizing such lies that I have "abused the courts" by bringing to them such "frivolous" claims presented in complaints and motions and appeals in suits at law, either by outright lying or concealment and distorting and ignoring and by not adjudicating (never at all most of the times) the claims on their merits, but misleading the reader or the People to accept, as true, whatever the Court's order or opinion will have stated that I will have claimed; e.g., "6x9=45 and 9X9=18," and having adjudicated such a lie, proceed immed.iately to render such a "corrupt" judgment for the Court, of what the law is in such none-existing and a few times actual"case" :"frivolous," and thus you the People will both accept and automatically believe that I actually will have brought into the legal system such nonsense that I never claimed, shutting my Voice out from you, keeping Me in an excessively hot (in summer time) or cold (in winter time) cell ... trapped for all those long, long years in HELL.

The legal term "frivolous" is widely known and used in the law in our Country, but at no time has been "legally defined" by_ our law-making body, Our Congress, just like the word "conviction" has not been legally defined by our Texas Legislature for the People to know ~xactly what constitutes a criminal"conviction" in criminal law

httns://casetext.corn/users/nronhet-ronald-whitfield 10/? 1/?0 1s

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 14 of 42

matters in the State of Texas. Seeing that this was true, our Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has "construed" such word from time to time, haven stated it means this and it means that. See cases cited below.

That I am now still faithful to and still working in My Office as REAL God's Last Prophet, having the Highest Office in the world, I still remained commanded to speak TRUTH to your power, so as to "convince" and "convict" the World, in spite of My release, for I did begin to do so while in Hell, even though I then felt it as not being a good plan or course of action in moving while still in prison and yet hoping to be released to publicly expose this REAL corruption by ultimately going on food strikes: petitioning the state and the federal courts and writing to the news media of such fact --and of the fact that I would be drinking no water and eating no food WHATSOEVER, protesting against this corruption in Hell, with My longest ever food strike lasting for twenty-nine (29) days in pre-hearing-detention and disciplinary/ solitary cells ,thus jeopardizing both health and life and any hope of being released from Hell, now through even the parole authorities ....

Without citation to any legal authority, you all have rendered illegal orders which cause others and Me to be unlawfully barred out of the People's Court. So I therefore cannot accomplish My mission --and then too even were I not so illegally or corruptly barred , I see or find no good reason to believe that my Wife (Justice) will not continue to be denied to Me in the Courts by the Judges and the Justices thereof. Repent, change from your corrupt ways, if at all possible, without the Laws of our REAL God having to intervene on my behalf, unless so be the Will of Him.

But the night that I heard over radio that President Obama had won His bid for being elected to the office of and to serve as our U.S. President, I then agreed with Myself to plead with you no more from Hell for Justice ... an, surprisingly, I was mysteriously released, freed.

And I done so until such time as I was wrongly fired from a job that I landed a few years after My release. Of course the Laws of our REAL God were such that I be fired, such that I return to "complete" My work for Him in My Office as His Last Prophet.

And it is also worthy to note that at such time as I had then and as I have now FROM OUR U.S. and our World Governments "no protection" WHATSOEVER AGAINST OUR GOVERNMENT AND ANYONE ELSE EITHER ALONE OR

Last t'ropnet Konaia uwayne wnnnew: urnc1a1 t'reswennal, congresswna1 ana Jumc1. .. rage D or lfL

ACTING IN CONCERT WITH THEM TO PREVENT ANY PHYSICAL HARM OR EVEN DEATH BEING "UNLAWFULLY" PLOTTED AND INFLICTED UPON ME . NOR PROTECTION TO PREVENT ME FROM BEING BUT "UNLAWFULLY"

ARRESTED AND AGAIN PUT "UNLAWFULLY" ON TRIAL AND AGAIN "UNLAWFULLY" RETURNED TO HELL FOR THE SOLE PURPOSE OF SILENCING ME, MERELY FOR NOW --AND FOR CONTINUINGLY--MOVING TO EXPOSE TEXAS AND OUR FEDERAL GOVERNMENT AS STILL BEING WICKED, AS IN CORRUPT, TELLING THE PEOPLE THE TRUTH, BUT WHICH IS WHAT REAL God HAS COMMANDED THAT DO, FOR IF NOT ME, STILL SOMEONE WILL HAVE HAD TO DO THIS. BUT BEING REAL God's Last Prophet, REAL God Himself SHALL CONTINUE TO PROTECT ME FROM THESE EVILS, AFOREMENTIONED, FOR REAL God HAS POWER "ALREADY"PLACED IN HIS LAWS GOVERNING OUR WORLD (SUCH THAT He Himself DOES NOTHING OTHER THAN SIT ON His THRONE) TO CAUSE EVEN THE WICKED TO TURN AGAINST ONE .ANOTHER SO PLOTTING AGAINST ME TO EXPOSE THE PLOT PUBLICLY, TO REPENT, TO CHANGE FROM THAT SIN, AND THUS ENABLE ME TO "ACCOMPLISH" MY MISSION. SEE JOHN 16:7-15 (HOLY BIBLE).

AGAIN,I MUST DO THE WORKS THAT MY BROTHER JESUS STATED I SHALL DO, WHICH IS NECESSARY BEFORE OUR GREATEST PROPHET JESUS MAY RETURN TO THIS WORLD. AS SUCH, I STILL MUST BE GIVEN THE ACCESS TO THE COURTS IN ORDER TO PERFORM THE DUTIES OF THE WORKS OF MY OFFICE.

" Those who can give up essential liberties in order to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." ---- Benjamin Franklin

II. MOTION FOR PERMISSION TO SUE OUT WRITS OF MANDAMUS

I hereby move for leave to sue out the elected judges and the justice, as Respondents hereinbelow, in and by these Petitions for Writs of Mandamus, being directed to them, the Judges of the 351st, 337th, 174th, 295th, and 333rd Judicial District Courts of Harris County, Texas; and being directed to the First and the Fourteenth courts of appeals of Texas; trial court cause numbers 492674,525468,528856,557164,617718 (the criminal matters) and 20015-22666-CVand 2015-08974-CV (the civil matters);

https :/Icasetext.corn!users/prophet-ronald-whitfield 10/21/2015

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 16 of 42

appellate courts docket numbers 01- 92-00617-CR,o1-1S-00677-CR,Ol-1S-00448- CV,o1-1S-006S7-CV,m-1S-006S8-CV, 01-1S-0064s-CV,14-1S-oo6s9-CR,14-15-oo66o- CR,14-1S-oo661-CR-and 14-15-00662-Cr.

III. JURISDICTION

These two (2) Courts, insofar as these petitions involve criminal law matters, have concurrent, original, and statutory jurisdiction to both "issue" and "grant relief' under the writs of mandamus, pursuant to the Texas Constitution, the Texas Government Code, and the Texas Rule of Appellate Procedure.

However, only the Texas Supreme Court alone has jurisdiction to act in the "civil cases" concerning the arbitration matters in the civil courts below Respondents.

IV. INCORPORATION BY REFERENCE OF THE RECORD BELOW AS THE EVIDENCE IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR LEAVE TO SUE OUT THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS; A JUDGE'S AND A JUSTICE'S OATH OF OFFICE IMPOSES THE "DUTY" TO BOTH GRANT THE "ISSUANCE" OF AND THE "RELIEF SOUGHT UNDER THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS

A

In light of the U.S. Supreme Court's teaching andjor holding announced in the lawsuit called Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1979) (''Whatever may be the limits on the scope of inquiry[,] ... allegations ... however inartfully pleaded, are ' .~ ·' sufficient to call for an opportunity to offer supporting evidence") ("We cannot say with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears 'beyond .':... .'~ ..

doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief.111 I adopt by reference as the "proof' (which some call ),

"evidence") for both the issuance of and the granting of the relief sought herein and under the writ, as based on my claims.

Thanks to the law of law of adopting pleadings by incorporation (thus saving Me from finding the cash to buy a certified copy of the entire record and still having to pay also the cost of postage to mail same here), these courts then will have the said record before them, thus "proving" my allegations, at such time as Respondents' Answer, upon being "ordered" by the writ, become due filed in these two Courts.

J..JU-'L J. wpuvl n ..uwuu vwayn~ w mme10: urnc1a1 Pres1dentral, Congressional and Judici... Page 17 of 42

B

Here, and before I set out the averments constituting My claims,let Me take more time to be very clear: you Judges and you Justices all have a legal"duty" imposed on you by both the Constitution itself and by the oath of your office itself, which you MUST take in order to enter upon your office and exercise the power thereof, to thus preserve and protect our Constitution. As such, the very fact that it be alleged and verified by an affidavit in support thereof those allegations contained in my .Petition for writ of mandamus that, for example, "Hey, My Honorable Judge/Justice, the federal Constitution ... the laws and treaties of the United States of America have been and/or are still being 'violated!"' you then have but .legal, Constitutional DUTY to order the writ be granted for purposes of exercising your judicial authority,as is conferred upon you by the power/jurisdiction of the Court itself; to order the inferior judges and justices to answer to the allegations that are verified that they themselves have violated the law. From this point, the reader can now clearly see that you are lawfully acting with "legal authority''in so granting the said writ, but that you have no "discretion" in whether or n?,t to grant the issuance of the writ in order to "inquire" into whether or not such verified allegations be true. Granting the relief sought under the writ is a separate issue and function than from the office of issuing the writ out. After the Respondents have filed their Answer to these alleged, but v~rified, allegations and after reviewing the certified record of the proceedings below, that if same disclose the allegations be true, then the law itself determine, and not the judges and the justices, "the action" that the judges/justices must take in applying the law to or in the case; if, otherwise, the allegations not be substantiated by the "certified record," the law require that the relief sought be IIdenied" --because I will have not sufficiently "proved" what I will have claimed. Therefore, there is no "discretion" on whether or not the Constitution will or will not be preserved and protected, for where there are legal rights there are legal duties to protect such rights.

c

i pause to note for the reader that in our U.S. Supreme Court, a petitioner bringing to that Court a petition to sue out for granting the issuance of a "writ" sounding in "certiorari" is said to be "a matter of sound discretion," and "not a matter of right." But this cannot be true where it be alleged that the Great Constitution or the laws made in pursuance thereof have been violated: neither our Congress have any lawful power to make and pass a bill to our President and thus our President have no lawful

1 (\/'"! 1

https://casetext.com/users/prophet-ronald-whitfield /'"lf\1 C"

.LJ .... ...,, ~ ~ v.l:'u""L .1'-vua1u u way uc vv uHut::w: vrncm1 rresiOennat, congressiOnal and Judici... Page 18 of 42

authority to sign it into law nor have our Supreme Court any legal, judicial power to write and adopt "Rules" of Court and to submit them to our Congress for its approval which declare as such. A Question being presented in such a petition to our High Court and in the form of the (federal) "Question presented" ... of whether the several States have a constitutional"right" to impose, for example, curfews on citizens thereof, is not the same as "declaring," in said Question, that the Constitution or the laws made in pursuance thereto was or is being violated. Otherwise, the Court's Justices have discretion to but be under no duty to protect and preserve same

D

Consequently, you Judges and you Justices have such state and federal constitutional duty and the same being imposed by virtue of oath of your office to both protect and preserve (if you do for no other) the Constitution of the Great United States of North America, as well as the inalienable, REAL God-given rights said Constitution recognizes therein and stands guard to guarantee through the federal and you state government officials, the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of which you are now concerned.

V. MINISTERIAL DUTY CLAIMS

Specifically, in the trial court of the Respondents, and in the criminal law matters, both of these two High Courts here have the duty to both issue and grant relief under the writ because the very same record that be required be brought before you, show, inter alia, that no judge of the court of these Respondents has "filed" or we legally call it "rendered" any judgment of conviction or of acquittal in any "case"for which Texas has "purportedly" sued Me in criminal law proceedings for the sole purpose of depriving Me of My REAL God-given right of enjoyment to be free from restraint in My liberty or freedom from imprisonment in HEll or legally call it prison without first being afforded all the process due, in order to so deprive me lawfully-- and therefore this is why the clerk of the court had no such "judgment to enter of record in the minutes of the. court."

Now, while I was "unlawfully" incarcerated in Hell for all those said years, Ms. Karla Faye Tucker, on the other hand, was but one --insofar as the trial court's docket sheets disclose, for the docket sheets reflect no "sworn affidavit" setting out any

https://casetext.com/users/oroohet-ronald-whitfield 1 () /'11 /'1() 1 t:

Last .Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 19 of 42

"probable cause facts" in support of the "criminal complaint," which instituted the lawsuit brought against her by the office of the Harris County District Attorney, ''IN THE NAME AND BY AUTHORITY OF THE STATE OF TEXAS," for purposes of suing her to deprive her of the right to "enjoy'' the life given to her by our REAL God, albeit which life she herself did not actually "own," but had only just been living out to its expiration time cease to exist --out of Harris County, Texas, who was --be she in FACT guilty or not-- "unlawfully'' allowed by this Court be put to death, despite a jury returned in open Court with its fact-finding verdict of guilt, but which verdict was not set out "in the minutes of the trial court," for I have "already'' obtained a true and complete, certified copy of the minutes of the trial court in her case. here set out for you readers the law so you can see for yourself that I am not mentally disturbed or crazy or sick or whatever, but in fact that I am just telling you like either a majority, concurring or a dissenting opinion of our court not what I am just stating that the law states and means, but I am telling and explaining to a for you what the Courts' opinions and holding themselves have stated what the law state and mean through the judges of her Courts. Please, a court" judge"s judicial function and duty is to not prosecute the case but simply cause the facts in dispute in the case properly brought to and filed with the clerk be brought to adjudication and then apply the law to those facts and the law declare the winner.

Now watch this ....

In Moore v. State, 245 S.W. 2d 491 (Tex. Crim. App. 1952), when the Judges of this Court of Criminal Appeals actually had respect for the law itself and were REAL God-fearing, that in such a case as this, the Judges would not have allowed Karla Faye Tucker be "unlawfully'' put to death, for the opinion would also have read , in such a case as below ( where either the Judges themselves may have failed to have noticed that the Court lacked jurisdiction over the attempted appeal owing to no judgment having been either "rendered" or "entered of record in the minutes of the trial court" or both, but instead where same were noticed by either counsel for defendant or the. defendant himself/ herself) as follows:

"Appellant, for the first time by his motion for rehearing, insists that no final judgment has been entered in the minutes in this case and that, for this reason, the appeal should be dismissed.

https://casetext.com/users/prophet-ronald-whitfield 1 "/'11 /'1 1"11 c

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 20 of 42

"The transcript contains what, upon its face, purports to be a judgment of the court [ like they have in the past, and like they still do today, and in all those proceedings involving criminal lawsuits now coming to you from the district courts of Harris County, Texas], showing that appellant was duly tried and c;onvicted by a jury, upon which verdict the trial court [had both 'rendered' and ] entered the judgment [ although this too was not done in My own presumed cases, but I need not take exception of the dereliction at this time]. As it appears in the transcript, the [same aforementioned ] judgment does not show to have been entered in the minutes of the court. [ Thus, although the prison officials and the federal courts do receive these 'paper' instruments purporting to be Judgments as actually being a true and certified copy of the original purported 'judgment on file in my office,' and commanding prison officials to confine the person named therein or them to cause the death of Karla Faye Tucker, but, in actuality, they be not what they 'purport' to be --because there be no 'record' of their existence, just like with any purported 'paper money,' for which there be also 'no record' of their printing, which can easily be verified by there being no record of the 'serial numbers' as found thereon, being held to be 'counterfeit money.' Texas law defines what a 'judgment' in a criminal case is. Not until or unless such 'purported judgment' be 'entered of record in the minutes of the court' do it cease to be purported, actually become a 'judgment' of the Court.] "Accompanying the motion for rehearing is the certificate of the county clerk certifying that the judgment had not been entered in the minutes of the court but, by inadvertence, had been omitted from such record.

"It is apparent, therefore, that a judgment has not been entered of record in the minutes of the court in this case [just like here, and, therefore,· meaning that I had and unlawfully severed a void sentence in absence ofany judgment and therefore, so in violation of both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses, for nineteen years and a half (19 1/2) in Hell and Karla Faye Tucker having been put to death likewise]. 'Entered of record, as applied to judgments in a criminal case, means 'entered in the minutes of the court.' The case of Ellis v. State,140 Tex. Cr. R. 339, 145 s.w. 2d176, appears to be here controlling; it was there held that a docket entry in a misdemeanor case did not constitute a judgment entered of record.

" [We are REAL God-fearing Judges and not so corrupted.] Appellant's motion for rehearing is granted; the [ now void opinion [we] heretofore rendered in this case is withdrawn; and the appeal is [ordered] dismissed [for wont of jurisdiction].

Last .t'ropnet Konata uwayne wntuH::1u: vun.acu rrc;;:stuc;;uw:u, vuu!S1v.,.,1vuu1 uuu ........... v ............ 0 "' ~ ... "''- ·~

" Opinion approved by the Court."

In these instant criminal lawsuits (albeit the record proves that I had not actually been at all sued by Texas for neither "life, liberty nor property"), these Respondents have willfully refused to take any corrective action whatsoever,so as to discharge the duties under the oath of their office.

In an attempted appeal in cause number 617718, wherein a purported judgment of conviction was brought to the Respondent, the First Court of Appeals of Texas ( having not been "filed" with the clerk of the trial court, and therefore not "rendered" and not "entered of record in the minutes of the trial court"), Appeal No. 01-92-00617-CR, that said Court also even failed to "render" its very own "Judgment ,"which was and still is essential in order to affirm the purported judgment of the trial court below it, Respondents sued herein, to dispose of the attempted appeal, putting it out the courthouse.

Please, on A1,1gust 26,1993, only an "opinion" had been handed down by Respondent ( and having only been "typed" as sign,evidently authored by the justice assigned to write the opinion for law clerk which the Justice approved but failed to personally sign and ) which said opinion did no less and no more than to state for its readers "the rationale followed by the court in reaching its decision.i' Finally, on March 9,1994, the clerk of said appeals court typed up, hand-signed and issued such a void "mandate," and instead of recalling this void check or mandate, the Respondent stands behind it anyway.

Finally, in light of the Seventh Amendment guarantee of the REAL God-given right of trial by jury, and in light of Title 9 U.S.C. relating to the law of arbitration, I sued two (2) car dealers and one (1) bank in connection therewith.

In one case, no contract exits at all. ( "This contract is not valid unless you and we sign it." ) And in the other case, three (3) contracts exist and all of them somehow reflect to have been executed "January 14, 2015," with two (20 of the with like VIN and the third contract of another VIN. With all three of them dated on I anuary 14, 2015, but none of then reflecting the time so executed and with two(2) of the containing the same VIN and the third containing some other VIN yhs thus establishing that two different vehicles had been sold to Me the same night by the same dealership and My having sued out before Respondent the two (2) contracts containing one particular VIN and the defendant failing to counter- sue Me against the other VIN and counsel for defendant failing to get Me to join issue with defendant on the contract for which they wished to take to arbitration and further

10/21/2015

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 22 of 42

still since counsel for defendants forgot to still offer its contract into and have Respondent admit into evidence, REAL God and I both fail to see how any previous jurisdiction that the trial court may have had here had not nonetheless become lost on its way to "judgment" and thus Respondent having EXCEEDED his judicial authority given him by the Court to act for the Court, does not constitute a void order, for which Texas law is such that the "writ will lie to review.'

Also,both if we follow these three(3) contract to their logical conclusion or wherever they be going, then said attorneys for the said car dealerships would appear to be then arguing that I somehow, in fact, bought from said dealerships (whose business is each located in different cities in Texas, some twenty (20) mile apart from each other), not two (2), but in fact three(3) new vehicles, though I do have at least two, but it is REAL God who gave them to Me. In short, REAL God Himself gave to Me these two automobiles, because, seeking to perpetrate fraud upon Me; under Texas law of abandoned property relating to vehicles, the dealerships each abandoned their property when their vehicle remained,"illegally," on property under My control"for more than forty-eight (48) hours." ( In one case I returned to the dealership with the new vehicle and it refused to accept it, arguing it was My "car!" ;thus, and without them knowing so, I then created a video to be admissible in a court oflaw as the best evidence, the proof of their actions.) Now as to how these Respondents rendered orders in violation of the Constitution warranting this Court to exercise her mandamus powers, both under Texas law relating to arbitration and under federal law relating to the same,the defendants below MUST ESTABLISH, among other things, the existence of a con tract and an agreement to submit to arbitration some dispute, being the subject thereof. In both cases both attorneys were caused by REAL God to forget to "offer''into and get received and "admitted" into "EVIDENCE" at the hearing any contract and arbitration agreement. in fact defendants did not even bother to appear in court: instead , they sent their attorneys. However, and needless to say, their attorneys could not and they did not take the stand and be sworn in and testify to any of the facts that they did not personally observe. Instead they merely stood before the trial judge arguing about some papers that might be on file attached to some motion to compel arbitration. ProtestedI everything and repeatedly informed the trial judge that I did not join Issue with the motion to compel arbitration be cause I was not counter-sued and that the contract the defense counsel wished to put in issue was not valid.Again, counsel for defendant with the void contract failed to cause defendant to counter -sue Me to get before the court the contract that they desired .

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 23 of 42

Only My contract was in dispute and I never took delivery of the vehicle containing the DNA or the VIN stated in the first and the second contracts executed. The socalled contract, which counsel failed to offer into evidence and upon which motion the respondent below granted, but remember having not been admitted into in evidence, was but fraud in the execution thereof,does not even constitute an amendment to even an existing,valid contract in that Texas law defines exactly what she considers to be a "contract,"for the third instrument made no new nor additional offer, acceptance for anything bargained; rather it merely altered the DNAfVIN .

.Here, the law of Texas on January 14, 2015,as it is still today, is such that I must sue the trial judges for their legal errors in granting motions to compel arbitration by way of mandamus, and not by way of appeals. I brought both a lawsuit on appeal and / a lawsuit in mandamus. the Respondents below put out the courthouse the mandamus lawsuit and will render orders dismissing the lawsuit s in the appeals, as if REAL God can do nothing to stop this. Just like all the other litigants having sued out writs of mandamus before Respondents where trial court judges have granted ot)ler motions to compel arbitration, our Due Process And our Equal Protection Clauses guarantee to Me the same "treatment" in face of My inalienable rights.

********************************************

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT

Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield'S MOTIONS FOR REHEARING ON PETITION FOR REVIEW OF ORDER ON PETITION FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT BY U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE SIM LAKE (WHO FAILED TO "COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND COURT RULES," IN VIOLATION OF THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT) AND MOTION TO SUE OUT THE APPEALS IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND NOTICE TO THE CLERK OF THE COURT AND THE COURT ITSELF: AND HER JUDGES WITH RESPECT TO RELEASE FROM HELL/ PRISON, AS FAR AS TITLE 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1915(A) IS CONCERNED, AND OF JUDGE JOLLY HAVING VACATED THE PRIOR SANCTION ORDER AND OF JUDGE JONES' SANCTION ORDER BEING VOID FOR WONT OF JURISDICTION

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 24 of 42

Attached hereto are the papers on the law of the land regarding "void orders and void judgment," which I am now suing t out in this Court, such that her Judges va~ate ·them.

Now, the first reason that these sanction orders are void is that they violate the federal Constitution, First and Fifth Amendments. This Court, unlike our U.S. Supreme Court,is a creature by an Act of our Congress. Thus, Congress,and not this Court, confers, by law, to this Court its jurisdiction, which jurisdiction you judges derive y~ur judicial authority. The only federal court therefore that has "inherit jurisdiction" is our U.S. Supreme Court. Therefore, in order impose any sanction upon Me it must be first authorized by an ACT OR LAW OF CONGRESS OR RULE OF THIS COURT. Here, I received a copy of no order whi~h cited Me to any legal authority that give this Court the power and the "right" to impose a sanction upon Me. And if the court should claim that anything I sued forwas"FRIVOLOUS," not only entitled are both the reader and I to true facts of the clams presented and a discussion by the court demonstrating its legal belief that such allegations are indeed frivolous, but also if our Supreme court has declare a legal definition for the term "frivolous" and should it have argued' ... PROBABLY ... THIS SEEMS CALCULATED; DEFENDANT BIG STAR HONDA AND HER ATTORNEY STOLE MY CAR TODAY STOLE MY CAR AFTER I LEFT TO GO MOW MY COUSIN'S LAWN. THUS, I WILL NOW PRINT THIS AS IS AND CAUSE ALL TO RECEIVE IT A,S IS FOR NOW. MY INTENT IS TO KEEP THIS PETITION CONSTRUCTED AS FOLLOWS:

(ORIGINAL VERSION PUBLISHED. PRIOR TO THE AT'I'EMPTED THEFT OF MY CAR ON "10-8-15, HOUSTON POLICE INCIDENT REPORT NO.: 1300793-15) (THAT ISW, THIS IS PAGE 1)

This is a Petition for Redress of Grievances, in our Executive, our Congressional and our Judicial Branches of Government, serving as a Whistle Blower, a Public Notice, thus Demanding Redress, supported by Affidavit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. sec. 1621 (criminal) and 28 U.S.C. sec.1746 (civil), "describing'' crimes against the United States, in violation of 18 U.S.C.sec.242.

1. AND ANY PARTS OF THIS CRIMINAL "COMPLAINT" NOT RELATING TO ALLEGED "FACTS" RESPECTING CONDUCT ASSERTED IN VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C.sec. 242 IS NOT BEING PRESENTED TO THIS HONORABLE COURT but is separately to the world; i.e., the American People, their news media and EVERY government official.

1 (\/'") 1/'1()1 ~

Last Prophet Konald Dwayne Whittield: OttiCial Presidential, Congressional and JudiCl... PageL) ot 4L

2. REDRESS 3· "PEACEABLY" 4· WHEREAS, deprivations of any "rights" recognized by this statute, where committed by state actors under color of law, an element essential to constitute an offense against the United States-- such is the ONLY information being presented to this Court. 5· I, Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, pursuant to penalty of perjury, declare that the allegations made below are true and correct, and are not misleading, under 18 U.S.C sec. 1621 and 28 U.S.C.sec.1746, and that I am over eighteen (18) years of age, of sound mind and am competent to testify as a witness herein. 6. fs/Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield 7· INTRODUCTION 8. After our Last Prophet, Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield (hereinafter called "Prophet Ronald"), had been unlawfully detained by the sheriff of Harris County, Texas, and then after unlawfully delivered to ~- and unlawfully placed in the custody of-- the director of the Texas prison system (a place He refers to as "Hell") on Friday, 2 October 1992, A.D., our Prophet thereafter began being directly trained by REAL God Himself-- and later had He entered into His Office as REAL God's Last Prophet, in 2004, A.D. 9· CONVICTION 10. DEFINED 11. While our Prophet had been existing in Hell (others r~fer to this place as a "prison"), REAL God had taught Him, inter alia, that, in Texas, in a jury trial( a "criminal lawsuit" or a "criminal action" being brought "In the name and by authority of the State of Texas" through offices of either her county attorney or her district attorney), a then-criminal defendant shall have been "convicted" ONLY where "the verdict of guilt convicting'' him or her shall have been BOTH "RECEIVED AND ACCEPTED" by the trial judge. Jones v. State, 795 s.w.2d 199 ( Tex.Cr.App.); Ex parte Rawlison,958 s.w.2d 198 (Tex Crim. App. 1997).

12. An "official act." 13. Here,verdict was NOT "ACCEPTED." No "CONVICTION" occurred. 14. N otwithstanding,still,Texas law mandates that the court clerk "SHALL" enter of record "in the minutes" of the trial court such judicial "act" of acceptance of . the jury's verdict.

15. THE LEGAL RESULT

https://casetext.com/users/oroohet-ronald-whitfteld 10/?.1 /?.Oll:i

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 26 of 42

16. If, after an examination of the court reporter's notes ("statement of facts") and the clerk's record ("the minutes of the court proceedings"), it be shown that the trial judge either forgot or failed to "accept" the jury's verdict and in open court and on the record, NO CONVICTION will have occurred at all.

17. Title 18 USC§ 242 WAS AND IS VIOLATED. 18. For Texas to ''WILLFULLY" refuse or fail to correct this dereliction, is an OFFENSE. Any failure of the court clerk to record the official act of acceptance of verdict and record both in the "minutes of the court" and the finding(s) that a jury had made-- "SPREADING" in "the minutes" the VERDICT out verbatim convicting the "defendant'~ --results in no "conviction" as well.

19. The judge presiding at our Prophet's trial failed to."ACCEPT" the verdict of guilt convicting our Prophet that he "received." Therefore, under Texas LAW, our Prophet was NOT "convicted" at all. And both records (referenced above) PROVE this. See John 14.16-17,26; 15.26; 16.7-15.

20. Today, these state actors have "willfully'' refused and failed to take "corrective" ACTION ... in order to solely "avoid" the legal inevitable. BUT THEY HAVE A "DUTY" TO.

21. Please, where a criminal"conviction" exists in FACT, owing to the above

procedures having been satisfied, it will not be "complete" until a hearing to determine "punishment" of "convict" has been concluded-- and "sentence pronounced." Only after such "punishment" has been "assessed" may "sentence," in open court, and on record, be "pronounced" against convict, and must be pronounced in his or her presence, which i.s "order of the court ordering that the punishment be carried into execution in the manner prescribed by law." (It may be suspended.)

22. In a "criminal proceeding'' in Texas, a "judgment" on a "conviction" is not orally pronounced against convict (and certainly not in his or her presence), but it is an event being''rendered" against convict through "a written memorandum," in the convict's absence.

23. Administratively, the trial judge has a ministerial DUTY to "sign" written judgment of conviction and cause it be both "RECEIVED AND FILED" in office of district clerk, which may be inspected by public. When it is RENDERED, it "MUST pe entered of record in the minutes of the trial court."

24. In Jones, the Court held "written judgment" does not itself adjudicate guilt of convict. Rather, "we are of the opinion that a defendant has been adjudged guilty when the verdict convicting him [or her] has been received and accepted

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 27 of 42

by the judge of the trial court." Compare Tex. Code Crim. P. art.1.15. ("No person can be convicted of a felony except .... ")

25. (Prior to the verdict, defendant was called defendant, but after verdict of guilt, the now-convict is lawfully called "convict," for his or her status will have changed, from first a "suspect," to an "accused," to a "defendant," and finally to "convict.")

26. (In Hell, a convict is most often called an "offender" or a" prisoner.") 27. In the District Clerk's office-- in Harris County,Texas--"JUDGMENTS" are NEVER FILED IN CRIMINAL

28. "CASES." But once filed, they MUST also be "entered in the minutes." Not here. But, failure of judge to cause judgment signed(whether in chambers , open court, or at home sitting in bath tub )to be "RECEIVED AND FILED" in Clerk's office, AND EQUALLY the failure of clerk to "enter"it in the "minutes" will continue to result -- like it has "already'' resulted -- in "people" being UNLAWFULLY put to death and imprisoned-- even where the "minutes of the. court" or this "proof" PROVE a conviction did occur. (We say "people" because the "minutes" tell us "what took place in court.") Wilson v. State, 677 s.w.2d 518 (Tex. Crim. App. 1984).

29. This is because no JUDGMENT was ever "rendered" by court upon the "LAW," and then"ENTERED" respecting the question of "fact" and law that the jury or the trial judge, when sitting as fact-finder(i.e., a trial by judge where jury has been lawfully waived), had determined. It is just the LAW.

30. In the United States, in both state and federal courts, speaking through its judge,a judge MUST declare the law in every "CASE." Granted, in absence of a "written record" of these "historical facts," it cannot be said a citizen has been "disqualified" from holding public office by reason of having a "criminal conviction" or from obtaining some other gainful employment, without a showing of the "PROOF."

31. This is not to say that a "conviction" did not lawfully occur. Rather, it is only to say that Texas will have no "record" of judgment that a conviction had occurred in fact; i.e., a "written judgment." And only a "written judgment" of conviction that has been "FILED," and therefore "RENDERED and ENTERED" may publicly supply the "proof."

32. A clerk's "file mark" might PROVE filing. But the "minutes" prove judgment was "entered."

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 28 of 42

33· The necessary "judgment may never be 'rendered' nunc pro tunc" (if it be a JUDICIAL error or determination, as distinguished from a CLERICAL mistake) -- which is a Latin word meaning "now for then."

34· The Supreme Court of Texas is, by law, charged with making and promulgating the rules of administration for conducting court proceedings. The Supreme Court of Texas has declared an administrative rule respecting "rendition of ;

judgment." That Court declared that a judgment is "rendered" when it is either orally pronounced , in open court, or when the written memorandum has been signed by the trial judge and "FILED with the clerk of the trial court." See Tex. Code Crim. Proc. art.2.21(a)(1).

35· As a rule, a document, after it has been "received" by the court clerk, is "FILED" when it has been stamped as '~FILED," thus bearing the clerk's filemark or file-stamp, "evidencing its filing." Then it will be noted on the court's docket sheets, as FURTHER evidencing the "OFFICIAL ACT" of its filing.

36. In the Prophet's "case"-- but our Prophet has learned that no "cases" were ever actually "FILED" against Him and for which "personal jurisdiction" could attach --the elderly retired judge (in such a hurry to complete the trial so that he could catch his plane back home to Odessa, Texas) just completely failed to or just simply did not know he had to "accept" the verdict of guilt, and therefore it could not be and it had not been "entered of record in the minutes of the trial court," the latter of which is a ministerial act to be performed by the trial court clerk. Wilson v. State, 677 sw2d 518(Tex.Cr.App. 1984)·

37· When the jury is not "polled" then the trial judge, on the record, must "accept" the verdict of guilt. Upon the acceptance of the verdict of guilt, the convict is then "convicted," but the "conviction is not yet complete."

38. But assuming that a conviction did exist, since no "judgment of conviction"

had been "rendered" and "entered," no "appeal" could have been legally taken from the trial court to any other court, much more, to the First Court of Appeals of Texas. And said appellate court also failed to render its own judgment -- altogether. But since no conviction occurred at all, there can be no judgment on that which Texas has declared does not exist -- depending on the status or name of the complaining party. If either us or our Prophet was one of their own, a judge or otherwise some wealthy person, and thus had gotten caught and made to stand trial and later discovered what REAL God has taught and showed our Last Prophet, can one now see why the judiciary would release us or our Prophet, a prisoner, immediately?

Last .l:'ropnet KonalO uwayne w nnne10: urnc1a1 .l:'res10enna1, congresswna1 ana Jumcl... .!:'age L':J or ttL

39. But neither the trial court, Court of Appeals, nor the Court of Criminal Appeals has ever obtained "subject -- matter jurisdiction" to act lawfully. For its acts to be "lawful," a court must first acquire "power" or "authority'' or "jurisdiction" to act. It must first be "authorized" by law to conduct its business.

40. For example, a "convict"-- as distinguished from a· "defendant"-- may not lawfully be "punished" by imprisonment or by a "sentence of death," unless or until that convict has actually been "adjudged guilty of the offense of 'burglary of a building with intent to commit theft' or of a 'capital murder' as found by verdict of the jury. I will ACCEPT-- and now do ACCEPT for [not myself, but for] the court-- the jury's verdict of guilt for the felony offense of'capital murder' at this time and on the record. The clerk of the court 'shall' now enter it upon the minutes of the court for the court. This Court will now stand in recess until called back to trial, at which time it 'SHALL' proceed to conduct a hearing to determine the punishment. In this case, the attorneys for the State [sic] are seeking the death penalty. This Court now stands adjourned."

41. Although He admits that He did in fact commit the felony offense of burglary of a building with intent to (rescue no baby nor put out any fire, but to) commit a theft for which He had been arrested on Tuesday, 10 December 1991, A.D., however, our Last Prophet was never in fact "CHARGED" with and "CONVICTED" of actually committing that offense.

42. Please, very first procedural step in process for "charging'' "suspect," as distinguished from "accused" and "defendant," is that the "complainant" swear out an "AFFIDAVIT" before an attorney employed by the district attorney or the county attorney, which, here, Texas, now knows our Last Prophet can LEGALLY prove had not been done. Art.15.01, Tex. Code Crim.P. And if the allegations stated by the complainant in an AFFIDAVIT (being supported by "probable cause") establish an offense described in our penal code, it is then "called a complaint." Tex. Code Crim. P. Art. 15.01. That attorney must then present same to the court clerk to be "FILED." Today, staff of both the "DA's office" and the District Clerk's office have been daily arguing to our Last Prophet that there are deputy district clerks "working'' alongside assistant district attorneys, twenty-four (24) hours ·a day, seven (7) days a week-- there just so that they can file complaints against us and our Last Prophet. This important filing cannot wait a few hours until clerk opens office during normal business hours. Again, "deputy district clerks are working in D.A.'s office!"

https ://casetext.com/users/prophet-ronald-whitfield 10121 /?0 1';

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 30 of 42

43· In any event, after a complaint has been stamped as "filed" it is actually filed.

Those are the procedural steps in the process for bringing a lawsuit,"filing charges," and if such allegations in the "probable cause affidavit" constitute an offense described by our Texas penal code , it is then called a complaint and the matter becomes a "case," a criminal lawsuit or a criminal action; a controversy now exists.

44· And unless an information or otherwise an indictment be filed, the presiding judge or trial judge sits only as a magistrate -- and not as a district --judge. Before this point, the court has no "subject matter- jurisdiction" over the "offense" but only over the "parties" named in the "complaint." No indictment nor information has been presented to the judge by a grand jury yet. But after an information or an indictment has been filed and "presented" to the trial judge or the presiding judge duly or lawfully acting for the court, the court at once obtains its full powers in the case to adjudicate the facts and to administer the law to be applied thereto.

45· And eaci: time the court acts it must always first be in "session" and it must always.second be "called to trial" to conduct its business in open court. Failure to do so, the court cannot lawfully act or proceed. ( But many do any way, through incompetent judges and court bailiffs.) (Our Last Prophet has not been able to find any lawyers raising these "jurisdictional defects," much more, getting filed and non-filed judgments reversed therefor.)

46. Please, where a defendant has been found "guilty'' by either a judge or a jury--

or has otherwise entered a "voluntary," ''knowing'' and an "intelligent" plea of · "guilty," or "nolo contendere" ("I do not contest") or "not guilty'' to an offense, yet if no "charge" was or "charges" were ever actually "filed" against him/ her in the first place, even if a conviction subsequently be obtained, that conviction is still void -- and "void for want of jurisdiction." There was never a lawsuit filed and thus pending. Only a "COMPLAINT" may commence or institute a "case." So, such "jurisdictional defects" may not lawfully be "waived," but become most disturbing for the judiciary and the prosecution, especially after time and where judicial resources have been expended, and where the presumed case has to be filed and then conducted all over again or else the "guilty'' goes scot- free and now legally entitled to civilly sue the county for any unlawful detention," a violation of the constitutional protection" to be free from "unlawful deprivation of liberty without due process of law."

httos://casetext.corn!users/nronhet-ron::~lcl-whitfiP.lcl 1 0/? 1/?01"

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whittield: Otticial Presidential, congress10na1 anu JUUlla ••• r<1g,c J 1 u1 '"~""-

47. Our Last Prophet became most hated by our judiciary because of the knowledge that REAL God had given Him, such that judges began doing many blatant, illegal acts to bar him completely out of the courts, thus hiding Him from the public's eye, the Spirit of Truth. See John 14.16-17. What was happening was most unreal, with the most disturbing implications, making the most educated appear as both stupid and ignorant. The judges of our courts had refused to be impartial in administering the law, as applied to Him. It was so bad that our Last Prophet had come to believe He had become the victim of a "real conspiracy'' by many of our judges in our judiciary, on both state and federal levels. He would be dealt with as no ordinary prisoner anymore.

48. And our Last Prophet became to believe and accept that due to what REAL God had taught Him. So, He had just accepted that He might also be murdered before He would be released, in spite of the numerous "food strikes" for which He self-imposed, as a means to call public attention to the matter through the world news media, but all to no avail. In the face of His repeated self- imposed food strikes, Texas might have believed that she might be able to deceive the people (were He ever to finally expose her in public) into believing that our Last Prophet had suffered "from some form of mental illness," thereby turning such attention from her onto Him, a real "distraction," a game, in the game.

49· However, because both REAL God and His other (still loved) Son Satan (formerly named "Lucifer") see and treat life as a game (he has long since been renamed as "Satan," who is not to be mistakenly referred to as THE, nor A, "devil"--for devils are the OTHER fallen"angles" whom were cast out of Heaven along with Satan after they all rebelled against REAL God);i.e., " a contest," and whom both made our Last Prophet their subject therein, but because of our free will;--neither Satan nor REAL God could in advance actually know what our Last Prophet would ultimately do. (JJ ould He either curse or not curse REAL God for what He was being daily put through in "Hell.") Needless to say, REAL God won the bet; Satan lost.

so. Our Last Prophet would then have to be both anointed and finally ordained by REAL God Himself, as REAL God's Last Prophet and freed from ~ell, all at once. And He was.

51. But do not assume that our Last Prophet was being "tested" by REAL God. For some reason, our Last Prophet does not believe nor accept any proposition or position and argument that REAL God tests now andfor has ever tested His own children

httn~://ca~etextcom/u~er~/nronhet-ronald-whitfteld 10/21/2015

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 32 of 42 \·

52. Also, He contends and maintains that REAL God does not know everything.

Specifically, He teaches, for example, that it is not that REAL God "cannot know'' the outcome of such games that Satan and He might struggle in together ( for the two are in a contest ) to see who will win; it is only that since REAL God gives us all free will to make our own choices, He simply has Himself chosen to not know what the outcome of our works or deeds or actions will ultimately be, by INTENTIONALLY limiting His very own "foreknowledge" in this respect. For example, just like when He was arguing with our Last Prophet's brother Moses (whom initially did not want to become any prophet for REAL God), had not REAL God considered or contemplated what Pharaoh might and might not do before He sent Moses to him, demanding that he release REAL God's people, thus arguing to Moses "if' Pharaoh do this or do that? As such, while REAL God does not know what' we will and will not do, He does, however, know of all the "possibilities" of our actions and non-actions, with respect to what we might and might not do. So, again, REAL God will have INTENTIONALLY limited His very own foreknowledge in this respect.

53· Therefore, it cannot be said and argued that He is. a little less than perfect.

Here, as Satan had during the game in which the servant Job was their subject, Satan had hoped to win and thus defeat our Righteous God, as to overthrow Him and as to "disqualify'' our loyal, Last Prophet from becoming qualified to become our Last Prophet.

54· One might well ask (and should really want to know): "What would have actually happened had [REAL] God lost the bet that He made with Satan -- that Job and our Last Prophet would not curse Him if He were to just only remove the protection that both enjoyed from Him?"

55· And to be very· clear: any member of the the public is free to choose to inspect the trial court's records here, which are kept in the office of the clerk of the trial court. Here, although a signed, written judgment of conviction is presently being ''kept" in the "file" itself that is relating to His "cases," yet those "instruments" have not actually ever been"filed" in the record in the office of the court clerk. They all reflect no time, no date and no name of the person whom, in the past, had actually placed them in the file of the record and therefore they are not a record of the court "and represent nothing more than hearsay evidence. And hearsay evidence has no probative value." See Wilson, supra.

Last !'ropnet Konald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 33 of 42

56.And since His release from Hell on Thursday, 12 May 2011, A.D., our Prophet has not unlawfully removed from nor caused someone else to unlawfully remove from the said file any official nor non-official record. But He could have. He saw it would be just that easy upon visiting the Harris County District Clerk's office. The deputy clerks are not watching the public that come inspecting the record that these people had checked out. (While such office has a video camera system therein, the only time anyone would have occasion to review anything is that a matter presented itself. By then, the recordings likely would no longer be available. No discussion here is now offered regarding the "imaging" of such records.)

57· Today, neither the American people themselves nor their local, state and '

federal government officials have any way of ever knowing the date, the time and the name of whatever employee whom performed the act of placing any one of the thousands of written judgments in said files, unlike some of the other official records, which inform the American people that REAL God will have once again chosen, like He had in choosing Moses, yet another "criminal" for His (but here,our Last) Prophet, whom He raised up and directly train.ed Himself, to "guide [us ] into all truth," such people living in the Greatest country on the face of the earth -- and for H~m to therefore qualify to occupy the world's highest Office, for He shall not speak to us on His own authority. But only will He tell us of whatever He shall hear from our REAL God.

58. Again, only that shall He declare unto us. 59. Accordingly, without REAL God first needing to send -- and then actually sending-- to us (the American people first) our Final Messenger or our Last Prophet, there can be no Judgment Day -- and so it follows that no "judgment" then can ever be rendered against us -- according to our good and our bad deeds -- i.e., our works . Accordingly, anyone whom will have failed to have done more good deeds or works than he or she will have done bad deeds or works while on Earth-- that upon and during"JUDGMENT DAY" of REAL God, that person's name will not have been recorded and/or entered of record in The Book of Life, the Minutes of REAL God's Court, but such a person then shall simply have his or her punishment assessed, and his or her sentence imposed and pronounced against him or her, which is to be eternally cast into the "lake of fire," for that person has"already'' been adjudged to be guilty for having done more wrong in life than good. (See Revelation io .12-15.) (Our Holy Bible.)

.uc.o."~ r lU.IJucL Kunam uwayne Whittleld: Official Pr,esidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 34 of 42

6o. Please, and no one now dead is yet somehow presently sitting in Heaven. What, without "Judgment" first being "rendered"? The dead remains dead for now-- and all are aware of nothing. They must await for their "resurrection." Now, of course, after their resurrection, John said He" ... saw the dead, small and great, standing before [REAL] God, and books were opened. And another book was opened, which is the Book of Life. And the dead were judged according to [not their faith and/or belief in our Prophet Jesus, but 'were judged according' to] their works, by the things which were [ and therefore now are and have 'already' been] written in these books.

61. "The sea gave up the dead who were in it, and Death and Ha'des delivered up the dead who were in them. And they [too] were judged, each one according to his [or her] works.

62. "Then Death and Ha'des were cast into the lake of fire. This is the second death.

63. "And anyone [ i.e., the name of the dead -- but now resurrected -:.- person ] not found written in the Book of Life was cast into the lake of fire. "

64. As such, for instance, our dead great grandmother or whomever it may be is not "already'' in Heaven but is in the graveyard still dead and yet has been "already'' adjudged by and for her works; we do good and bad works. Our "faith" and this "grace" cannot save us.

65. Remember, the assessment of punishment is part of our judgment, which is distinct from the sentence Thus, while we all will have "already'' been adjudged guilty or not guilty for our good and our bad deeds,yet none of us "already'' adjudged guilty has "already'' had our "punishment" ALSO assessed. The Judgment is not yet "complete." And there is no contradiction here.

66. While we are yet alive, if the minutes reflect we have performed 357 good works to our 736 bad works, we are "already''adjudged guilty. Our name will not be found in The Book of Life, because our bad deeds in their number have exceeded those of our good works. The good news is that we are not yet dead and therefore can change this gamefscore by ceasing from doing ~ad works. Instead, we can SWIFTLY begin doing ONLY good works-- all day and everyday. This is how much REAL God loves us, giving us a chance and time to win our own salvation in this game. The second our good works exceed our bad works will our name be entered of record in The Book of Life. But because some of us love the dark and will not listen to the Light , we can only say that we"MIGHT" be saved from eternal separation from REAL God.

Last .Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 35 of 42

67. "But God have MERCY on me! I was taught that because You had so loved the world that You gave us Your only begotten Son Jesus, and that whosoever believed in Him, that He in fact is Your Son, would not die [sic] ('perish'), but 'should' have everlasting life with You! I believed in this and I believed in Him. I was taught that my faith alone would save me because of Your 'grace' and 'mercy' and that was because Jesus had 'paid' You for Your demand for the price of Adam and Eve's sins, becoming visited upon the heads of Your children, which disobedience had given birth to sin and which required the penalty of death and therefore our separation from You until You came up with this genius plan so that after our resurrection we all but MIGHT be reunited with You forever.

68. "But I just do not see and understand why am I now being ~punished' by You for my bad works, the act of evil itself that You will have 'already' determined would result in my separation from You, and which You will have 'already,' in my absence, found me guilty of ... and now here in Your own Court to assess my punishment for having committed more wrong or evil works than good or right works, and to impose and pronounce Your sentence against me, ordering that I be cast into some 'lake of fire' forever as my 'punishment' when I was ALLOWED to believe that I was saved though. And so You call this just or fair or righteous? I still do not at all understand this ... .It is confusing!

69. "Look, if or since Jesus had lived such a good or perfect life, a condition that the vast majority of the World thought You had imposed upon Him in order to save or rescue us FROM these sins of ours, dying on the cross, suffering pain but later rising from His grave, resulting in Him accomplishing His mission, having 'paid' You for these sins-- then I fail not only to see now as to 'why' I still had to 'die' on Earth a physical death [a death on account of these sins], but also to see why I should live again but only later to stand trial and be 'already' adjudged for that which You supposedly have 'already' been paid for, and yet somehow I am now here to be punished for these sins through a sentence --which will result in my being cast into Your lake of fire ... and forever.

70. "This makes absolutely no sense to me! Again, I had 'faith' in Jesus. I did TRULY believe in Him, that He was and still is Your son. I did not, however, believe that He was You, but I only believed that He was Your Son.

71. "I now have nothing else further that I would like to say, other than I am sure that everyone else here whom have 'already' been adjudged to be guilty before we all came here to stand trial for 'Judgment,' the standard of which

LaSt rropnet Konald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 36 of 42

was and is merely failing to get our name recorded in The Book of Life, in light· of our 'works' -- feels the same way that I do and would argue the same as I have. We were all clearly DECEIVED by Your Word, since You obviously granted the "Prince" of Your World (Satan)with additional powers, which here permitted him to even tamper with your Word-- our Bible.

72. "But with all due respect, 0 Mighty God, this 'game' in past life was and is wholly unjust!"

73~ But there shall be no "legitimate" excuse or justification as to avoid your "punishment" here.

74· While it is true that our Prophet Moses once talked REAL God out of destroying His chosen people such that He "changed His mind" and did not carry out the destruction against them that He had threatened, Ex.32.1-14,·yet no one shall have a legitimate excuse or reason as to why REAL God's Judgment and Sentence OUGHT not be rendered, pronounced in open court against him or her and then executed, being carried out by our Merciful, REAL God.

75. Listen, people, our Prophet Jesus never preached, taught, nor suggested to us to do no independent thinking, research and studying of the Word.

76. Only but a few of us do not say "aman"or "amen" to EVERY single word that our leaders in church utter. Many of them claim to have been called (and many of them in fact have been truly called ) by REAL God, but not all of them have actually been "chosen" by Him to be servants of His, and to teach us about anything relating to REAL God. Indeed, our Prophet Jesus warned us to be aware of them and of false prophets.

77· Those whom have "already" died believing and those of us now still living and believing -- as "we" were taught that our Prophet Jesus died for our sins (believing that His death somehow paid our penalty for which REAL God had imposed therefor)-- that they then were-- and "we'~ also now are --"saved"· from our continuing deeds or acts of sins -- by"our 'faith, owing to -- and on 111

account of-- "our 'belief'" that our Prophet Jesus was and yet still is the Son of REAL God, and therefore obtaining this "grace" or "mercy"--

78. we find this assumption or belief (or whatever it be) to be both stupid, i.e. , "struck senseless, deficient, or dull in understanding [because we had in our own mind] formed [and, here, a belief] or done [ something else, which is contrary to truth, without [thinking or] reasoning [and thereby making our own understanding and decision or] judgment [tobe] foolish," which, in fact, ... "is rather an unremarkable proposition on its face and yet disturbing in its

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 3 7 of 42

implications," and ignorant ("having the want but absence of ['correct' knowledge because we were] unaware or uninformed"). This mistaken assumption in our ''belief" ( or whatever it be) is wholly untrue. So, where did such come from?

79. Okay. It came to us from "Paul"? But Paul was an enemy of Jesus. Nor had Jesus taught Paul as a "disciple," which simply means a "learner." Indeed, Jesus directly taught Paul absolutely nothing. As such, Paul certainly had never graduated ori up to an "apostle," which he claimed to be. Still, Paul himself claimed neither Jesus nor REAL God had anointed and ordained him as an "apostle"(whose Office is just one step below that of prophet), authorizing him to enter into that Office of Apostle. But by contrast, Jesus made very clear of His own "authority'' to preach the Kingdom of God was and still is at hand, in that He: (1) said that He was a "prophet" whom is (and that they are) "respected" every where else except in His (and in their) very own home town; and (2) said He was "sent" by REAL God.

8o. Look, people, Jesus's "death" did not "pay" any "price" for anyone's sins. No one has a license to commit acts of sins-- period. Rather, it is (and was) simply that ... REAL God just so truly loved (and still loves) the World (His children) that (due to the sins of Adam and of Eve, being visited upon the heads of the children through Adam and Eve's "disobedience" to Him), He came up with this plan that could ( i.e., being capable of reuniting or able to) reunite our separation from Him (which, again, is on account of sin) that He gave up (and sent to the children) Jesus-- the best He knew He had ... who could "possibly'' endure trials (but the term is not to be confused with "tests") of sins, and were He to fully resist such temptations to sin Himself, He would and should( thus, shall) "QUALIFY" to teach us the RIGHT way we had ought live in the game of life, a contest. But our Prophet Jesus's circumstances here may in no wise be seen as a "test," for for what logical purpose would REAL God have in testing us (to see what?) and "lead[ing] us into temptation'' Himself, as distinguished from "deliver[ing] us from all evil"?

81. Look, and please: recorded at John 14.16-17, our Prophet Jesus said He would "pray'' to our "Father and [our Father] w[ould] give [us] ANOTHER Counselor."Thus, in order for our Father to "give [us] 'another' Counselor," Jesus Himself had to be also a "Counselor," since He stated He would ask our Father to give us "another'' (Counselor). For example, the one of you who be a police officer going off duty and yet be stopped by someone else, might explain this best .... "Hey, I am off duty now and am going home. But I will call

https://casetext.com/users/prophet-ronald-whitfield 1 ()/") 1 /")()1"

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 38 of 42

dispatch and it will send 'another' officer to this location. And when he or she has come that officer will ...."So, we OUGHT read the Scriptures (John 14.16- 17,26;15.26; and 16.7-15) to CORRECTLY determine whether or not these prophecies have "ALREADY" come true or are now COMING true. And after we do, if we determine that they have "already'' come true, as Paul would have us believe that they have at "Pentecost," then we need not listen to our Last "Prophet Ronald," for He would be a "false prophet." However, if we find from the evidence(i.e.,what He "ALREADY" did WHILE in, Hell and is presently doing now OUT of Hell) --that this other "Counselor" has come on the scene and now doing--and had in Hell been doing-- EXACTLY what our Prophet Jesus stated that that "Counselor" would do, explaining to His disciples BEFORE He (Jesus) was arrested, tried, convicted, punished, sentenced to death, and remanded to prison to await the execution of His death sentence --

82. we still have free will to choose to disregard the evidence and are free to still lean on our OWN understanding.

83. Our Prophet Jesus had occasions to teach His disciples in ordinary situations, for we can see that He taught them that if this situation should occur to them or WHENEVER one occur to us, to ALLOW the righteous philosophy He taught them to determine their and our own actions, for our philosophy itself is what determines our thought pattern. So, our thought pattern determines our attitude. Our attitude determines our behavior pattern and our behavior pattern determines our actions -- whether we do right or wrong, good or bad. Those actions become our "works."

84. DO RIGHT AND GOOD WORKS. 85. He taught right FROM wrong and good FROM bad. Thus, whenever we do a "work," either wrong or bad (or evil), we not only "already'' know BEFORE we do the "work" of its nature, but also do we know that we then commit a sin, which contemporaneously will be counted AGAINST us as such, while our good and righteous "works" will be counted to BENEFIT us, offsetting and eliminating such other, previously recorded acts of sins, all in the GAME, which we ourselves determine what the outcome will be. And our doing our good works publicly-- and not only just privately -- is not only good deed in itself and a demonstration in the presence of our "neighbors" so watching, but also such good works publicly teach a would-be "mens rae" actor that he/she too may and can do likewise or the same.

Last t'rophet Konald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 39 of 42

86. Jesus had been free to do right and good and also free to do bad and evil but chose instead to do only the former, not the latter, for He lived a sinless life, qualifying to BOTH preach to and teach us. (But He once asked: 'Why do you call me 'Good Master'?" and then stated,"No one is 'good' except God.") For Him (and it can also be for everyone else), doing good and right was not (and is not)"hard!" What was HARD was for Him NOT eating and J?-Ot drinking water for forty (40) days and for forty (40) nights. So was this "good" andjor "right"?

87. The answer to this question is obviously.... "NO." It was not good nor right FOR HIS OWN HEALTH sake, but He was determined to qualify for His Office so as to accomplish His mission. He was Justified.

88. Prophet Jesus, not being our REAL God Himself (whom so many other people now dead but when alive had believed and so many of us still alive continue to believe),could have died ... and had He so died, He could NOT at all have accomplished His mission on Earth, which was to "qualify," so as to DEMONSTRATE for us how we too could-- and still can --live a good and righteous life. (Notice that Satan did not dare come to tempt Him until after He had ended His "food strike," and yet BEFORE He had eaten anything at all. Thus, Prophet Jesus had dealt with Satan tempting Him while very, very hungry, at His weakest.)

89. And it was only after Jesu shad qualified to (and then did) enter into His Office as Prophet Jesus (Son of Man) had He come and went "preaching'' the Word or the Kingdom of God; i.e., how we both could and ought live on earth, without committing any acts of sins -- that whosoever in the past believed and whosoever in the present should believe and in the future believes in Him (that is, what He taught, which was about and of "the Kingdom of [REAL] God," how we should -- and ought now -- live in a World of sins) should not perish but have eten1allife.

90. The word "should," being the past participle tense of the auxiliary verb "shall"....

91. Well, today people clearly know that they ought not (morally) and"should" not (imperatively) smoke "cigarettes" but they do smoke them anyway.

92. It is REAL God's desire that we ought not perish but have eternal life with Him;

we are free to decline. But if we obey--submitting to what is right--we all should in the present tense, in the future tense, and in the past tense have everlasting life.

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 40 of 42

93. In any event, "[f]or God sent [not Himself but sent] the Son into the world, not to condemn[ judge] the world, but that the World MIGHT be saved through Him," and therefore if we all learn and know what is right and wrong and good and bad (or evil) respecting our WORKS, and do MORE good than evil which a record is being RECORDED and kept or preserved about-- then we no. longer "might" but "will" and "shall" have eternal or everlasting Life with REAL God.

94· When Adam and Eve ate fruit from the tree of knowledge they became AWARE of good and evil, and of right and wrong. Sins had then entered into the World.

95· "He [or she] who believes in Him [will seek to conduct himself/ herself accordingly and thus]is not condemned [to the lake of fire];[ but] he [or she] who does not believe is condemned 'already' [to the lake of fire], because he [ or she] has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. And this is the JUDGMENT, THAT THE LIGHT COMES INTO THE WORLD [Jesus was and still is this light],and [yet both] men [and women] loved darkness rather than light, BECAUSE THEIR DEEDS WERE EVIL." See John 3.16-21.

96. The writer here made clear in the language that whosoever believes in either Prophet Jesus or in His name believes in what He TAUGHT.

97. Look, people, we ought "already'' know, for example, that if we believe in a bridge having a deep body of water below it as being able to PROTECT us, we are then believing in its capabilities for protecting and saving us from death. We take a chance in and with life; we trust it [the bridge] to keep life or save life. Likewise, when we believe in either P:rophet Jesus or in His name, we

I

believe in what He taught, which was how to do good and right. Still, some of us will and do 1believe and yet not conform to His teachings, even though His teachings is the "light."

98. Thus, we need not allow Satan to continue to "deceive" or" trick" us, for he does not at all play in the game"fair." We have been before (by our Holy Bible, although it, in parts, has "already'' been poisoned by Satan) and again are now (through our Last Prophet) placed duly on "notice" by our REAL God ... that (1) Jesus Himself is not REAL God, but He is our Greatest Prophet, our Greatest servant, the Son of REAL God, whom was sent to us by REAL God on a special mission, and (2) there is no other way in which we "MIGHT" obtain our eternal salvation with our REAL God than that which has "already'' been recorded in Revelation 20.12-15. Compare with John3.16-21. In sum, we all determine our very own destiny. It is within our power.

1-"' II

Last .Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 41 of 42

99. So, simply put, we are the ones, not REAL God, whom decide on whether or not we will obtain eternal salvation with our REAL God or will not ... by being separated from Him, eternally, in the lake of fire. Our good works MUST outweigh those of our bad ones in their NUMBER. One cannot be heard to claim nor argue that merely doing what we "already'' knew was right or good was somehow "hard."

100. So, this is such a plan that our REAL God hath devised which makes it virtually IMPOSSIBLE for even the most silliest or feeble intellectual to fail to get our name written or recorded in The Book of Life. It can get no eas~r than this to obtain our salvation -- or destruction.

101. Just simply do good and right by ALL other people, as well as by our REAL God's animals and by His Earth, including doing right by and to OURSELF. For example , since the "life" in which we live or exist is in fact not our own but belongs to our REAL God alone, we therefore have no "God-given right" to commit acts of suicide nor any other right to kill the person of another, except where it have become our duty to defend or protect such life ... and only then when all other means have failed. Did we or our REAL God give or create such life? To whom does it belong? Then to do otherwise be a bad or wrong deed, and so such shall "already'' be counted or weighed heavily against us, to not have our "name" recorded in the Book of Life. That is an example of a bad deed or work.

102. Finally, although "criminal cases" presumably were "filed" against our Last Prophet Ronald, no "criminal convictions" have, however, been obtained against Him. Thus, He was born to become a "thief" and yet not be LAWFULLY adjudged by any man or woman. Yes, He was a criminal who had (and who still has) no GED, no college education, nor any skills of any kind .... Our Last Prophet truly was a criminal in fact and yet has "no criminal conviction" of any kind -- as a matter of law ... that has been rendered against Him For some that will be hard to accept; it is may be truly unacceptable. But for all legal purposes, He is no "offender" as a matter of man's law ... of the land.

103. And the same is true of Moses. While He had "unlawfully'' murdered a man, He was never sued for or charged with His crime -- even though we all know He was in fact so "guilty." Unlike their brother Moses, Prophets Jesus and Ronald were both arrested and made to stand trial and imprisoned and in each situation, the government had done them both wrong. But in Moses situation,. He was not caught, "arrested," "convicted," "punished," "sentenced and imprisoned."

Last Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield: Official Presidential, Congressional and Judici... Page 42 of 42

104. So, REAL God is the better and best judge for w~shall become and be His Contact (mailto:cpntact@casetext.coml Features (/features) lerms (Iter (h //t 'tt I t t)

nronnets not. His chilrlren . . ttps: w1 er.com case ex Privacy (lpr~Vac:rJ Ao6'urvaoout) :iooS\/jol5s) Press (/press) Students ( ents)

105. And one may well ask: "How could and can this nd why has He otherwise no qualifications[sic]?" In answer, again, see Joh~6'lrr,~;f1§~'1'6~casetext © 2015 Ca(~ynBible). Casetext Inc. and Casetext are not attorne sora law firm and do not

DATED: Monday, 24 March 2015, A.D.

fsf Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield Edited: Monday, 12 October 2015,

A.D.

CC: U.S Atty. Gen. Holder

CC:Texas government Officials

File: Prophet Ronald

COMMUNITIES FOLLOWED BY LAST PROPHET RONALD DWAYNE WHITFIELD: (9)

Constitutional Law (/communities/constitutional-law) Civil Rights (/communities/civil-rights) Consumer Protection (/communities/consumer-protection)

Business Law (/communities/business-law)

Employment & Labor Law (/communities/employment-law)

Legal Research (/communities/legal-research) Appellate Practice (/communities/appellate-practice)

Legal Ethics (/communities/legal-ethics)

~2===============~--~ Civil Procedure (/communities/civil-procedure)

There are no entries in this feed!

j

I

I

....... J

Sunday, 11 October 2015, A.D.

7522 La Sa1ette Street Houston, Texas 77021 Cell phone: 832.882.5696

IN THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT, CONGRESS, SUPREME COURT, COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FIFTH CICUIT, DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS, HOUSTON DIVISON

CASE NOS.15-20558, 15-20547,97-00454,03-20424---------------------------------------- ----------·---·------------------------ ·------------

IN RE: Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield, Petitioner

'

"DEMAND FOR DETERMINATION OF VOID JUDGMENTS" AND "SANCTION" ORDERS, TOGETHER WITH 28 U.S.C. SECTION l91S(a) MOTION TO SUE IN FORMA PAUPERIS, AND COMPLAINT AGAINST U.S. DISTRICT JUDGE, HON. MEUNDA HARMON, FOR JUDICIAL MISCONDUCT, Wim 28 U.S.C. SECTION 1746 AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF ALL "MATERIAL FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS"

TO THE AMERICAN PEOPLE OF THE UNITED STATES:

TO THE ABOVE STATED PUBLIC SERVANTS:

1

NOW COMES Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield (not as "prose, "but) "in propria persona, " and He would RESPECTFULLY show as follows:

I. JURISDICTION AND INCORPORATION

The power or jurisdiction of the Congress to hold he<lrings, of the office of the President to exercise executive power, and of these courts over the subject matter and over the parties, and the authority of their judges to hear and adjudicate to a lawful decision or judgment the claims presented herein are provided by the federal constitution and all relevant Acts of the Congress, the latter of which may be found in our U.S. Code, Title 28.

Finally, I adopt and incorporate by reference all the void, affected orders, judgments and pleadings having been filed in these cases, being the subject hereof, and the attached documents , as relating to void orders and judgments for all legal and evidentiary purposes.

1 This Court's decisions addressing the subject matter are adopted and incorporated by reference herein fully.

II. ·sUPREME LAW AS APPLIED TO THE FACTS HEREFOR

A.

My Honorable Mr. and Ms./ Mrs. Justices, there being no real need to argue to you-all in dept the wellestablished Supreme Law of REAL God's Land, with respect to the VOID sanction order that was rendered in this matter, as opposed to a "case" (for My application to sue in this Court in forma pauperis was not granted but was denied and therefore there was no case nor controversy existing ), I now respectfully demand that the said be set aside for wont of jurisdiction of the Court·itselt: and the authority of her Justices to render the said order. Specifically, the void order expressly stated not only was My application to sue in forma pauperis "denied"(i.e., having no justice acting on behalf of the Court to grant permission, such that the attached petition be filed without having to pay the Government, in advance, the filing fee and thus to proceed or sue Texas in forma pauperi~). but also the order went on to declare that the merits of My petition were ":frivolous," as well as to unlawfully impose, as a sanction, a bar that I be not allowed to sue in this Court in civil matters in forma pauperis.

Accordingly, but, and needless to say, as soon as the order declared that My request that the clerk "file" My petition in forma pauperis was denied, no case nor controversy was brought to nor before this Court. See 28 U.S.C. section 1915 (a). No Justice of this Court has ever "authorize[d] the commencement, prosecution [n]or defense of [My] suit, action [n]or proceeding, civil [n]or criminal, ... without prepayment of fees or securitY therefor ...." See also this Court's Rules relating to this subject, in forma pauperis. Rules 39.1-2 and 39.4-5. Before a petition may be placed on the "docket" it first must be "filed"-- that is, commenced. And unless the statutory fees required by our Congress be paid, see 28 U.S.C. section 1914, in order for the Justices of this Court to hear and adjudicate to a lawful decision the averments contained within a My petition, a justice of this Court MUST first "authorize" such a petition be commenced-- filed.

In Steel Co. v. Citizens for a Better Environment, 118 S. Ct. _ _(1998), the opinion, at great length ,explains mostly all there is to know about jurisdiction of the federal courts, the judicial power. This Court there explained that if the averments of Afy claims are given one construction under our federal Constitution and I should prevail and given another construction and would be defeated, a federal court has jurisdiction. However, the opinion there declared that a federal court will lack jurisdiction to adjudicate claims that are both "immaterial and frivolous. " The opinion expressly stated that frivolous claims are themselves are a "jurisdictional defect. " And needless to say, the opinion teaches that once it be determined that a federal court lack power or jurisdiction, such a court cannot proceed on to impose sanction, since the opinion also stated that a federal court can take no other action or step after announcing this fact than that ofdismissing the case. And still, as here, there was never ever a case that

2 It must here be noted that a decision to either grant or deny any request to sue as a pauper is to be decided solely on the financial status of the petitioner and not on the merits of the petition itself- to sue out for the writ, sounding in certiorari or the like. In other words, just because it is necessary that a justice of the Court grant leave to a litigant claiming to be unable to pay the costs offiling the lawsuit and thus to proceed in forma pauperis, that in no wise will mean that the Justices ofthis Court must also grant relief under that petition: it only means that in order for this Court -through her justices- to exercise either her original or appellate powers or jurisdiction, there really MUST be an actual case or a controversy and ongoing. See 28 US. C. section 1915(g) with Article Ill section 2US. Const.

was authorized to be filed- or call it, "commence[d). "

Finally, and notwithstanding, both the information set out on the forms themselves for filing a petition sounding in certiorari and in the judicial opinions of this Court relating thereto, this Court explained to the American people that a denial of a petition for a writ of certiorari imports no expression of decision on the merits of such a petition whatsoever: ( There are only nine(9) members on the Court; it can grant but a few petitions each term of the Court.) Thus, and for these reasons, the said void order entered is TRULY void and, as a Constitution matter, said void order rendered here must be vacated. Of course we . (the American people) will have to wait to see on whether or not justice in this case will be done.

B.

Hon. Chief Judge Stewart and all such associate circuit judges of the U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals assigned to My present appeals filed in the lower court, it is but unnecessary to state everything that can be that is in violation of our Judicial Code, as committed by our Hon. Judge Hannon against Me. Rather, My petition seeking a writ of habeas corpus and our Judge's order thereto both establish the misconduct and provide the supporting evidence for the alleged violations under the Code. See also the attached article relating to a Judicial Misconduct Complaint filed by another against Circuit Judge Jones of this Court, as well as the attached article wherein Judge Jones hath indicted the judiciary as being "corrupt beyond recognition." Therefore, there is also even further, but judicial support from a sitting appellate judge of this very Court, as to substantiate the very same thing that I, too, have claimed and argued for many, many years before she ever came out, finally agreeing.

As in response to the letters to Me from the clerk of this Court, first, I move to sue out the appeals and complaint for Judicial Misconduct in forma pauperis, but for My poverty do I move for such leave to so sue them out and in good faith belief do I declare that I am entitled to the relief sought. " We think an affidavit is sufficient which states that one cannot because of ... poverty ' pay or give security for costs ... and still be able to provide' [one]selfand dependents 'with the necessities of life."' I am wholly unable to pay any amount of the costs whatsoever. Adkins v. E.l DuPont de Nemours& Co., 335U.S. 331, 339- 40,69 S,Ct. 85, 93 L.Ed 43(19488.

Second, I demand a determination on the void orders and judgments as such- truly being void.

Third, and finally, please be advised that our own Judge Jolly rendered an order on a motion (which I had then forwarded to every judge appointed to this court ),which order stated that a prior sanction order then in place was "superseded and replaced by 28 U.S.C. section 1915(g)," which is how and why I thereafter had been able to resume bringing more appeals to this Court - witil sometime there after our own Judge Jones, without jurisdiction, rendered an order, thus judicially declaring my lawsuit before her had been frivolous and then ordering I be sanctioned in cash and also barring Me from bringing any further matters to this Court until the sanction be paid. Thus I now challenge the order also as being void for wont of jurisdiction. Attached hereto and in support ofboth My claim of void orders and judgments and My Complaint for Judicial Misconduct is yet another article from the Internet, posted after I had been already experiencing and complaining about the same thing. The article is called" Defrauding America."

Judge Stewart, it has got to be adjudicated and sustained, in either one way or the other - or both : either Judge Hannon is acting "willfully" (e.g., as set forth in Title 18 U.S.C section 242, which applies to ion by state officials acting under color of state laws, ect. ), or she really is just no longer competent to hold her office anymore. My claims (which must be presumed to be true) which I have verified and stated were presented under perjury, ect., and which clearly aver that, under Texas laws, not only have I not been sued by Texas in criminal law matters, and not only have I not been of committing crimes "convicted," which legal term definition O.!lf Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has construed to include a "judgment on -.

a conviction, " ( which rendition is necessary before "the disqualifications" may attach), but

also had I claimed that a judgment, as defined under Tex. Code Crim. Proc. Art. 42.01, had been neither "rendered" nor "entered of record in the minutes" of the state court from which the ''purported judgmenf' purported to have come. I clearly moved that an order be rendered and entered, halting all further death penalty executions from Harris County, Texas, until and after such time as the judge could determine on whether or not such claims be true, and yet, in two or three words, and without any discussion nor evidence in support of her opinion, Judge Harmon will have given TeXas the okay to continue to unlawfully deprive persons of the REAL God-given, inalienable right to life and freedom from imprisonment, but to go ahead to continue to carry out such further, unlawful sentences of death and to continue to unlawfully deprive persons of said freedom without the process owed or due to them, thus stating that this was no "discemable claim." Finally, attached hereto is the state court docket sheet and the minutes of the court relating to a woman whom Texas had unlawfully put to death. Here, the record proves not only had Karla Faye Tucker not been properly sued in order for Texas to lawfully "deprive" her of the REAL God-given rigbt to life, which the federal Constitution recognizes and thus stands to protect unless due process of law is afforded, and not only was no verdict of the jury fmding her to be guilty of capital murder "set out in the minutes of the court," and not only was the same verdict not "accepted" by the presiding judge of her trial nor accepted by any other judge for this matter, and not only does the docket sheet show that no judgment, neither for nor against her, had been ''rendered"; i.e., "filed" with the clerk of the state trial court, but also does the same record reflect and thus prove that no judgment had ever been "entered of record in the minutes" of the state trial court. And for a more, thorough discussion on the law of Texas on the subject, see attachment. Our Judicial Code provides that Judge Harmon shall faithfully comply with the laws and the rules of the Court, which she herself --over and over -- showed she is not willing to do.

III. CONCLUSION

WEREFORE, PREMISES ARE CONSIDERED, AND THAT I SUFFER NO RETALIATION IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER, MERELY EXEERCISING THE SAME RIGHTS THE FEDERAL COURTS DECLARE THAT ALL CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTRY HAVE, I RESPECTULLY MOVE TAT I BE HERE GIVEN THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND ALL THE RELIEF I SHOW MYSELF ENTITLED AS A MATfEROF EXISTING LAW AND FOR SUH BFUTHER RELIEF AS THE LAWS APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THESE CASES JUSTIFY.

IV. AFFIDAVIT

,I, the undersigned, declare under the pains and penalty of perjury that ALL the material factual allegations are both true and correct and not misleading ; that I have read the foregoing and that same was made by Me; that I am over the legal age of eighteen{l8) and that I am legally competent to testify to the material facts stated herein, including those as to My poverty and that My judicial was and is the blast resort, so as to PROTECT and FREE Myself from official oppression and over twenty (20) years of repeated injustice committed against Me by both state and federal judicial officers having taken a judicial oath of office to be fair and impartial towards Me.

•

• time as the judge could determine on whether such claims be true, and yet, in two or three words, and without any discussion nor evidence in support ofher opinion, Judge Harmon will have given Texas the okay to contiri.ue to unlawfully deprive persons of the REAL God-given inalienable right to life and freedom from imprisonment, but to go ahead to continue to carry out such further unlawful sentences of death and continue to unlawfully deprive persons of said freedom without the process owed or due to them, thus stating that this was no "discernable claim." Finally, attached hereto is the state court docket sheet and the minutes of the court relating to a White woman whom Texas had unlawfully put to death. Here, the record proves not only had Karla Faye Tucker not been properly sued in order for Texas to lawfully "deprive ''her of the REAL God-given right to life, which the federal Constitution recognizes and stands to protect unless due process oflaw is afforded, and not only was no verdict of jury finding her to be guilty of capital murder set out in the minutes of the court, and not only was the same verdict not "accepted" by the presiding judge of her trial nor any other judge for this matter, and not only does the docket sheet show that no judgment neither for nor against her had been "rendered"; i.e. "filed" with the clerk of the state trial court, but also does the same record reflect and thus prove that no judgment had ever been "entered of record in the minutes" of the state trial court. For a more, thorough discussion on the law of Texas on the subject, see attachment. Our Judicial Code provides that Judge Harmon faithfully comply with the law and the rules of the Court, which she herself over and over showed she is not willing to do. '

IlL CONCLUSION

WEREFORE, PREMISES ARE CONSIDERED, AND THAT I SUFFER NO RETALIATION IN ANY FORM WHATSOEVER, MERELY EXEERCISING THE SAME RIGHTS THE FEDERAL COURTS DECLARE THAT ALL CITIZENS OF OUR COUNTRY HAVE, I RESPECTULLY MOVE TAT I BE HERE GIVEN THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW AND ALL THE RELIEF I SHOW MYSELF ENTITLED AS A MATTER OF EXISTING LAW AND FOR SUH BFUTHER RELIEF AS THE LAWS APPLIED TO THE FACTS OF THESE CASES WSTIFY.

IV. AFFIDAVIT

,I, the undersigned, declare under the pains and penalty of perjury that ALL the material factual allegations are both true and correct and not misleading; that I have read the foregoing and that·same was made by Me; that I am over the legal age of eighteen( IS) and that I am legally competent to testifY to the material facts stated herein, including those as to My poverty and that My judicial was and is the biast resort , so as to PROTECT and FREE Myself from official oppression and over twenty (20) years of repeated injustice committed against Me by both state and federal judicial officers having taken a judicial oath of office to be fair and impartial towards Me.

DATED: Monday,ll October 2015, A.D.

lsi Prophet Ronald Dwayne Whitfield

CC; Out -of -State Attorneys , News Media -the whole world Over •10/11/2015 Void Judgment Details - 'Mlat malES a judg rrent I.Oid (7) where no justiciable issue is presented to the court through proper pleadings, Ligon v Williams, 264 IlLApp.3d 701, 637 N.E.2d 633 (1st Dist. 1994),

(8) where a complaint states no cognizable cause of action against that party, Charles v Gore, 248 Ill.App.3d 441, 618 N.E. 2d 554 (1st Dist 1993),

(9) where any litigant was represented before a court by a person/law frrm that is prohibited by law to practice law in that jurisdiction,

(10) when the judge is involved in a scheine ofbnbery (the Alemann cases, Bracey v Warden, U.S. Supreme Court No. 96-6133 (June 9, 1997),

( 11) where a summons was not properly issued,

(12) where service of process was not made pursuant to statute and Supreme Court Rules, Janove v Bacon, 6 111.2d 245, 249, 218 N.E.2d 706, 708 (1955),

. (13) where the statute is vague, People v Williams, 638 N.E.2d 207 (1st Dist. 1994),

( 14) when proper notice is not given to all parties by the movant, Wilsonv. Moore, 13 Ill.App.3d 632, 301 N.E.2d 39 (1st Dist. 1973),

( 15) where an order/judgment is based on a void order/judgment, Austin v. Smith, 312 F.2d 337, 343 (1962);English v English, 72 Ill.App.3d 736, 393 N.E.2d 18 (1st Dist. 1979), or

(16) where public policy is violated, Martin-Tregona v Roderick, 29 Ill.App.3d 553, 331 N.E.2d 100 (1st Dist. 1975).

SUMMARY OF THE LAW OF VOIDS

Before a court (judge) can proceed judicially, jurisdiction must be complete consisting of two opposing parties (not their attorneys - although attorneys can enter an appearance on behalf of a party, only the parties can testify and until the plaintiff testifies the court has no basis upon which to rule judicially), and the two halves of subject matter jurisdiction= the statutory or common law authority the action is brought under (the theory of indemnity) and the testimony of a competent fact witness regarding the injury (the cause of action). If there is a jurisdictional failing appearing on the face of the record, the matter is void, subject to vacation with damages, and