IN THE TEXAS FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS 600 COMMERCE ST.,SUITE 200, DALLAS TEXAS NO.

Transcription

1 IN THE TEXAS FIFTH COURT OF APPEALS 600 COMMERCE ST.,SUITE 200, DALLAS TEXAS NO CV STEVEN ROTHACKER, APPELLANT V ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT, APPELLEE ON APPEAL FROM THE DECISION OF THE ROCKWALLCOUNTY COURT APPELLANT S AMENDED BRIEF STEVEN ROTHACKER, PRO SE 689 KENTWOOD DR. ROCKWALL, TEXAS H C ORAL ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED

2 IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL APPELLANT STEVEN ROTHACKER PRO SE 689 KENTWOOD DR ROCKWALL, TEXAS CELL APPELLEE ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT HONORABLE CHRIS FLORENCE, PRESIDING REPRESENTED BY CRAIG STODDARD ASSISTANT CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY 1101 RIDGE RD. SUITE105, ROCKWALL, TX FAX

3 TABLE OF CONTENTS IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL TABLE OF AUTHORITIES STATEMENT OF THE CASE ,5,6 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW STATEMENT OF FACTS SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT ARGUMENT AND AUTHORITIES ,11 PRAYER/ RELIEF REQUESTED CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ATTACHMENTS: A. COPY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS PRESENTED TO ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT B. COPY OF RE-CONSIDERATION OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS C. COPY OF ORDER SIGNED BY PRESIDING JUDGE CHRIS FLORENCE DENYING BOTH WRITS D. COPY OF MOTION TO DISMISS CONVICTION PRESENTED TO JUDGE CATHY PENN, ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE

4 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES 1.ART TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURES 4,5,6,8,9,11 2. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION 5 TH AMENDMENT DUE PROCESS CLAUSE 6,7,10,11 3. UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION, 14 TH AMENDMENT 10,11 4.U.S. V SMITH, D.C. IOWA 249F, SUPP. 515, TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURES, ART. 1.04, Due Course of Law. 6,7,11 3

5 STATEMENT OF THE CASE STEVEN ROTHACKER, APPELLANT WAS CONVICTED OF A TRAFFIC VIOLATION IN ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT AND WAS FINED AND ORDERED TO PAY 197 DOLLARS BY JUDGE CATHY PENN. SUBSEQUENTLY, ROTHACKER FILED A MOTION (SEE ATTACHED) WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT TO DEFINE THESE DOLLARS AS ASSOCIATE JUDGE DEBRA WATERS HAD STATED PRIOR TO THE TRIAL THAT THE FINE WOULD BE IN PAPER DOLLARS THE SAME AS MOST PEOPLE USE TO BUY THEIR GROCERIES. ROTHACKER, FURTHERMORE IN HIS MOTION TO THE MUNICIPAL COURT POINTED OUT TO THE COURT THAT ART OF THE TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES REQUIRES THAT FINES CAN ONLY BE COLLECTED IN THE LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES. THERE IS NO STATUTE, FEDERAL OR STATE THAT DEFINES A PAPER DOLLAR AS THE LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES. WHILE THERE IS A STATUTE THAT STATES FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE LEGAL TENDER FOR ALL DEBTS PUBLIC AND PRIVATE, THE SO CALLED FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES THAT ARE IN COMMON CIRCULATION TODAY WHICH JUDGE CATHY PENN CALLS DOLLARS ARE 4

6 NOT REAL NOTES SINCE THEY ARE NOT REDEEMABLE IN ANYTHING AND ARE CERTAINLY NOT REDEEMABLE IN DOLLARS. PRIOR TO 1963 REAL FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES WERE CIRCULATING AND WERE PAYABLE IN LAWFUL MONEY OF THE UNITED STATES BUT WERE NEVER REDEEMABLE IN DOLLARS. THESE REDEEMABLE FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES READ THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA WILL PAY TO THE BEARER ON DEMAND TEN DOLLARS WHICH WAS A MEASURE OF SILVER. SO A DOLLAR WAS NEVER A NOUN OR SOMETHING BUT WAS A MEASURE OF SOMETHING AND AT THAT TIME IT WAS A SILVER DOLLAR WHICH ONE COULD GET FROM A FEDERAL RESERVE BANK OR THE UNITED STATES TREASURY, SOME BANKS. SO, THIS PAPER MONEY DOLLARS MASQUERADING AS A FEDERAL RESERVE NOTE CANNOT BE THE NOTES REFERRED TO IN FEDERAL STATUTES OR THE LAW MEANS NOTHING. SO THE QUESTION STILL BEGS FOR AN ANSWER? AND THIS IS THE ESSENCE OF THIS CASE. WHAT IS A DOLLAR? AND HOW DOES IT COMPLY WITH STATE LAW ART TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES FOR THE COURTS TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE AND COLLECT THESE SO CALLED DOLLARS IN VIOLATION OF ART AND TO CONTINUE TO OPERATE IN A FICTION OF LAW AND PERPETRATE THE 5

7 FRAUD THAT PAPER FEDERAL RESERVE NOTES ARE ÐOLLARS OR ARE PAYABLE IN DOLLARS IS A FRAUD AND MAKES A MOCKERY OF JUSTICE. IN ADDITION THE ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT UNDER THREAT OF INCARCERATION FORCED ROTHACKER TO GIVE UP HIS PROPERTY 400 PAPER DOLLARS AS BOND IN FURTHER VIOLATION OF ART , TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES AND IN VIOLATION OF TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES ART. 1.04, DUE COURSE OF LAW AND VIOLATION OF 5 TH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTITUTION DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. ROTHACKER THEN FILED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS WITH THE ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT TO COMPEL THE MUNICIPAL COURT TO COMPLY WITH THE LAW AND DEFINE DOLLARS AND THE MOTION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS WAS DENIED. DEFENDANT HAS BEEN DENIED HIS ABSOLUTE BASIC RIGHT OF DUE PROCESS BY JUDGES WHO HAVE BEEN ARBITRARY AND CAPRICIOUS. 6

8 ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1. THE ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT ERRED IN DENYING APPELLANT RIGHTS UNDER TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES ART. 1.04, DUE COURSE OF LAW AND THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE OF THE 5 TH AMENDMENT, U.S. CONSTITUTION BY DENYING APPELLANT S MANDAMUS TO COMPEL THE MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE TO DEFINE THE MEDIUM IN WHICH THE DEFENDANT WAS FINED AND WHERE IT IS DEFINED AT LAW. I.E. WHAT IS A DOLLAR? 2. THE ROCKWALL COURTY COURT ERRED IN DENYING DEFENDANT S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS GUARANTEED BY THE U.S. AND TEXAS CONSTITUTION BY DENYING APPELLANT S MANDAMUS TO COMPELL THE ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT TO SHOW HOW THE FINE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH ART TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. 7

9 STATEMENT OF FACTS DEFENDANT WAS FINED 197 DOLLARS BY MUNICIPAL COURT JUDGE CATHY PENN. APPELLANT DOES NOT KNOW WHAT THESE DOLLARS ARE OR ANY STATUTE FEDERAL OR STATE THAT DEFINES THESE DOLLARS OR HOW THE FINE COMPLIES WITH ART TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. THE MUNICIPAL COURT FURTHER VIOLATED APPELLANTS RIGHTS BY FORCING APPELLANT UNDER THREAT OF INCARCERATION TO GIVE UP HIS PROPERTY 400 PAPER DOLLARS AS BOND ALSO IN VIOLATION OF ART , TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. APPELLANT S MOTION, ATTACHMENT D WAS FILED WITH THE MUNICIPAL COURT TO ANSWER THE ABOVE QUESTIONS WAS IGNORED BY THE ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT. APPELLANT SUBSEQUENTLY FILED A WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND A RE- CONSIDERATION OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ATTACHMENTS A AND B WITH THE ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT TO COMPEL THE ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT TO ANSWER THE APPELLANT S QUESTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH DUE PROCESS. ROCKWALL COUNTY JUDGE CHRIS FLORENCE DENIED BOTH THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS AND THE RE-CONSIDERATION OF THE WRIT OF MANDAMUS, ATTACHMENTS A AND B. 8

10 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT APPELLANT IS ASKING FOR SIMPLE JUSTICE. APPELLANT HAS BEEN FINED IN A MEDIUM DOLLARS THAT IS SIMPLY UNKNOWN TO HIM AND NOT DEFINED IN ANY STATUTE OR LAW. FURTHERMORE APPELLANT IS ASKING THE COURTS TO FOLLOW THE LAW IN APPLYING THE FINE IN ACCORDANCE WITH ART.43.02, TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. THE COURTS AND GOVERNMENT ASKS THE CITIZENS TO FOLLOW THE LAWAND I AM ASKING THE GOVERNMENT AND THE COURTS TO FOLLOW THE LAW. 9

11 ARGUMENT ANDAUTHORITIES JURISDICTION THE ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT HAS THE AUTHORITY OVER THE MUNICIPAL COURT IN A MANDAMUS PROCEEDING AND IS THE FIRST LEVEL OF APPEAL AVAILABLE TO APPELLANT. DUE PROCESS APPELLANT WAS NOT GIVEN DUE PROCESS WHEN THE FINE IN DOLLARS WAS DETERMINED BY THE MUNICIPAL COURT AS THE MEDIUM OF PAYMENT IN DOLLARS IS UNKNOWN TO DEFENDANT AND IS UNDEFINED IN ANY STATUTE OR LAW. APPELLANT IS GUARANTEED FAIR PROCEDURES AND DUE PROCESS IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION, 5 TH AMENDMENT AND THE 14 TH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTITUTION THAT A LAW SHALL NOT BE UNREASONABLE, ARBITRARY OR CAPRICIOUS, U.S.V SMITH, D.C. IOWA,249F. SUPP.515, 516. THE ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT FAILED TO DEFINE THE MEDIUM OF THE FINE AND HOW THAT FINE COMPLIED WITH ART.43.02, TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. FURTHERMORE THE 5 TH AMENDMENT AND 14 TH AMENDMENT U.S. CONSTITUTION ALSO PROHIBITS THE DEPRIVING OF PROPERTY OF AN INDIVIDUAL WITHOUT DUE PROCESS. THE ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT 10

12 DEPRIVED APPELLANT OF HIS PERSONAL PROPERTY UNDER THREAT OF INCARCERATION WHEN THEY FORCED APPELLANT TO GIVE UP 400 PAPER DOLLARS AS BOND IN VIOLATION OF STATE LAW ART , TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT VIOLATED DUE PROCESS PROCEDURES IN DENYING APPELLANT S MANDAMUS, ROCKWALL COUNTY JUDGE CHRIS FLORENCE FURTHER DENIED APPELLANT S DUE PROCESS RIGHTS UNDER THE 5 TH AND 14 TH AMENDMENTS OF THE U.S, CONSTITUTION AND DUE COURSE OF LAW UNDER THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION, ART. 1.04, TEXAS CRIMINAL PROCEDURES. 11

13 PRAYER/RELIEF REQUESTED FOR THE REASONS STATED ABOVE, THE APPELLANT PRAYS THAT THE COURT REVERSE THE ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT DECISION DENYING HIS MANDAMUS AND RENDER AN ORDER COMPELLING THE ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT TO ENFORCE THE MANDAMUS. RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED, STEVEN ROTHACKER. PRO SE APPELLANT 689 KENTWOOD DR. ROCKWALL, TEXAS

14 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE THIS CERTIFIES THAT THE UNDERSIGNED SERVED THIS APPELLANT S BRIEF WITH ATTACHMENTS ON ROCKWALL COUNTY CRIMINAL DISTRICT ATTORNEY KENDA CULPEPPER, 1101 RIDGE RD, SUITE 105, ROCKWALL, TEXAS, BY HAND DELIVERY ON WEDNESDAY, JULY 7, A COPY WAS ALSO FILED WITH THE COUNTY CLERK OF ROCKWALL COUNTY. STEVEN ROTHACKER APPELLANT PRO SE 13

15 ATTACHMENTS A. COPY OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS PRESENTED TO ROCKWALL COUNTY COURT B.COPY OF RE-CONSIDERATION OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS C. COPY OF ORDER DENYING BOTH WRITS SIGNED BY PRESIDING JUDGE CHRIS FLORENCE D. COPY OF MOTION TO DISMISS CONVICTION PRESENTED TO CATHY PENN, PRESIDING JUDGE, ROCKWALL MUNICIPAL COURT 14

16 Steven Rothacker VS ) IN THE COUNTY COURT ) City of Rockwall ) OF ROCKWALL COUNTY, Citation No ) ) ROCKWALL, TEXAS Rockwall Municipal Case ) ) Rockwall, Texas RE-CONSIDERATION OF WRIT OF MANDAMUS Defendant Steven Rothacker is asserting that the Court has erred and respectfully requests the court to reconsider the denial of defendant s writ of mandamus.made by the court on Feb 3, Defendant is entitled to due process of law, 5 th Amendment U.S. Constitution which means that the courts must not deprive defendant of any rights or property without due process and must not be arbitrary,unreasonable or capricious in its use of the law.. Cathy Penn in the Rockwall Municipal Court has convicted defendant on a charge of speeding and has been assessed a fine of 197 dollars. Defendant has asked Judge Penn to define what these dollars are and the law that defines them as such and to rule on how these so called dollars are in compliance with Texas Criminal Procedures art, which states that fines can only be collected in the lawful money of the United States. Judge Penn has failed in her duty to comply with the law and has failed to rule what these Dollars are and how they are complying with State law and therefore is violating defendants fifth amendments rights for due process. Therefore, the defendant is requesting the Court to mandate Judge Penn to answer the above questions and to rule what these dollars are and how they are complying with State law. The Rockwall County Court clearly has the jurisdiction to command the lower court, Rockwall

17 Municipal Court to restore defendants rights which have been illegally deprived to have the State law, Texas Criminal Procedures art followed and to clearly define the medium dollars which has been imposed on defendant as a fine. Respectfully, Steven Rothacker Kentwood Dr. Rockwall, Texas 75032

18 State of Texas VS ) IN THE COUNTY COURT ) ) OF ROCKWALL COUNTY, Steven Rothacker ) ) ROCKWALL, TEXAS Rockwall County Case ) No. CC ) Rockwall, Texas ORDER Defendant Steven Rothacker came to be heard on his Writ of Mandamus on February 2, Defendant Steven Rothacker also submitted a re-consideration of his Writ of Mandamus dated Both the original Writ of Mandamus and the re-consideration of Writ of Mandamus both of which are attached to this order are denied. Signed Judge Chris Florence, presiding Judge date