Elsie O. Jones v. Jose G. Ramirez-Rodriguez ( 2015 )

September 1, 2015
NO.03-14-00230-CV
IN THE
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Elsie 0. Jones, Appellant
v.
Jose G. Ramirez-Rodriquez, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW N0.2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. C-l-CV-13-002528, HONORABLE ERIC SHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
FREY, NAVARRO & WHORTON, P.L.L.C. PRO SE,
Ms. Monica Jo Quinene Aguon Ms. Elsie O. Jones
Texas Bar No. 24073827 2347 Douglas Street
Address: Trinity Plaza I, Suite 550 # 6106
750 E. Mulberry Avenue Austin, Texas 78741
San Antonio, Texas 78212 Telephone: (512) 809-7698
Telephone: (210) 732-9800 Email:kevinandelsiejones(5)yahoo.com
Fax: (210) 568-6871
Email Address: monica(5)fnwlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, PRO SE FOR APPELLANT
JOSE G. RAMIREZ-RORIGUEZ, ELSIE 0. JONES
APPELLEE APPELLANT
/received^
COVER SHEET SEp Qnm
THIROCOURI OF APPEALS.
\_jFFFRgVD.KYLE /
NO.03-14-00230-CV
IN THE
TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS, THIRD DISTRICT, AT AUSTIN
Elsie 0. Jones, Appellant
v.
Jose G. Ramirez-Rodriquez, Appellee
FROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW N0.2 OF TRAVIS COUNTY
NO. C-l-CV-13-002528, HONORABLE ERICSHEPPERD, JUDGE PRESIDING
APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR REHEARING
FREY, NAVARRO & WHORTON, P.L.L.C. PRO SE,
Ms. Monica Jo Quinene Aguon Ms. Elsie 0. Jones
Texas Bar No. 24073827 2347 Douglas Street
Address: Trinity Plaza I, Suite 550 # 6106
750 E. Mulberry Avenue Austin, Texas 78741
San Antonio, Texas 78212 Telephone: (512) 809-7698
Telephone: (210) 732-9800 EmaihkevinandelsieinnesOvahno.rnm
Fax: (210) 568-6871
Email Address: monica(5)fnwlawfirm.com
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE, PRO SE FOR APPELLANT
JOSE G. RAMIREZ-RORIGUEZ, ELSIE 0. JONES
APPELLEE APPELLANT
COVER SHEET
No. 03-14-00230-CV
ELSIE 0. JONES
Appellant,
v.
JOSE G. RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ
Appellee.
INDENTITY OF PARTIES & COUNSEL
Elsie 0.Jones, Appellant, certify that the following isacomplete list ofthe
parties, and their attorneys, who havean interest in the out come ofthis
lawsuit:
Parties:
Elsie 0. Jones Plaintiff/Appellant
Jose G. Ramirez-Rodriquez Defendant/Appellee
Attorneys:
Pro Se: Trial and Plaintiff/Appellant
Elsie 0. Jones pro ge
2347 Douglas Street
#6106
Austin, Texas 78741
Telephone: (512) 809-7698
Email Address: l[Holt, 990 S.W.2d at 755]
Reply Issue 2 -5:The court of appeals erred when it states the party
with the burden of proof attacks the legal sufficiency of the
evidence to support a jury's findings and the party must
demonstrate on appeals that the evidence establishes as the
matter of law. A court must first examine record for evidence
support verdict, ignoring all evidence to the contrary. If there is
no such evidence, the court then examine the entire record to
see if the contrary. An Appellant court reviewing a verdict legal
sufficiency start by considering all the evidence or only part.
Rules and Reasons compel that evidence must be credited or
discarded where it support a verdict or contradicts it. The scope of
review the appellant court must view the evidence in the light
favorable to the verdict crediting favorable evidence if reasonable
jurors could disregarding contrary evidence unless reasonable
jurors could not. In its legal sufficiency review, the court refused to
consider that of all the evidence, only consider that evidence which
viewd in its most favorable light, support the jury's findings and
they disregards all the other evidence which would have lead to a
contrary result. The duty ofthis Court [is] to examine and consider
all of the evidence in controlling issue, in doing so decide is then
enduce of probative value to support the answers made by the jury
to the issue. The reviewing court must reject all evidence
favorable to the plaintiff in error, and consider the facts and
circumstances which sustain the verdict. There is some evidence
that Jones certain occur, there is some evidence that it did not.
Jones and her husband testified that relied on the evidence. If the
jury accept this evidence is true. That the court of appeals
acknowledge the general rule that the trier of fact is the sole
judge of the credibity of the witness and the weight to be given
their testimony, however where there is evidence on a issue and
and no evidence is to contrary, the court of appeals held that the
trial court has no right to disregard the evidence and decide the
case in accordance with its own wishes.[Mack v. Moore, 669 S.W.2d
415 (Tex. App-Houston 1st Dist.) 1984, no writ]
Reply Issue 6-8: The court ofappeals should have rewarded the
Appellant damages due to Tex. Trans. Code Ann 545.062 Vernon 2003.
Due to Transportation Code, Title 7: Vehicle and Traffic, Subtitle: Rule
of the Road, Operation and Movement ofVehicles, The court of appeals
erred in the evidence of Jones allotted parking space privileged parking
and Rodriguez original answer to the court in his statement he did not
see Jones vehicles fail in the transportation code ann. sec.545.062 fail
to maintain an assured clear distance between the two vehicles so that
considering the speed ofthe vehicles, traffic, and the conditions of the
highway, the operator can safely stop without colliding with the
proceeding vehicle or veering into another vehicle, object, or person, on
or near the highway; An operator of a truck or a motor vehicle drawing
another vehicle who is on a roadway outside a business or residential
district and who is following another truck or motor vehicle drawing
another vehicle shall, if conditions permit, leave sufficient space
between the vehicles so that a vehicle passing the operator can safely
enter and occupy the space. [Acts 1995, 74th Leg., ch. 165, Seel eff.
Sept 1,1995] Jones and her husband testified that Rodriguez was
parked next to Jones vehicle. In Rodriguez orginial answer that Jones
vehicle was not their when he left home, and his wife was with him
but no testimony from his wife stating she was with Rodriguez when he
left home. No one to testified on his behalf considering his orginial
answer. [CLK REC P. 140] Evidence showing Rodriguez parking next to
Jones' vehicles [CLK REC P. 267-293] The officer issue both Jones and
Rodriguez Driver's Crash Report. [CLK REC P. 321 -328] Evidence
Showing and supporting Jones damages. The Evidence of Tortious
Interference as the matter of law, ACS Investors, Inc. v. Mclaughlin, 943,
S.W. 2d 426,430 (Tex. 1997) At common law, a defendant is liable
to pay damages in tort for action intended to interference with the
plaintiffs contractual relations with the third party. Named Mr. David's
Hall Independent Expert, where the court granted the appointed named
expert. In an intentional interference claim, the burden is on the
plaintiff to prove the elements of the claim rather then on the defendant
to prove that its acts were justified. To prevail on the claim, plaintiff
must prove four elements. (A) that a valid contract existed, (B) that the
defendant had knowledge of the contract; (C) that the defendant acted
intentionally and improperly; and (D) that the plaintiff was injured by
the defendant actions. [United Truck Leasing Corp. v. Geltman, 406
Mass,811,812,551 N.E. 2d 20n.6 mass 1990] Tortious interference
also known as intentional interference with contractual relation.
In the common law of torts, occurs when a person intentionally
damages the plaintiffs contractual, other business relationship. [CLK
REC P. 184 -223,464-479] (a) tortious interference with contract rights
can occur
where the tortifeasor convince a party to breach the contract against
plaintiff, (b) where the tortifeasor disrupts the ability of one party to
perform his obligations under the contract, there by preventing the
plaintiff from receiving the performance promised. Holding negligent
interference with prospective advantage actionable when risk harm
was foreseeable. [Union Oil Co. v. Oppen. 501 F, 2d 558 9th cir. 1974]
This a mirrors our prior jurisprudence, which provide jury, "has several
alternatives available when presenting with conflicting evidence,
because one witness and disbelieve others may resolve inconsiotencies
in the testimony of any witness, and may accept that testimony over that
of experts. [Mc Galliard v. Kuhlmann 722 S.W. 2d 694,697, Tex. 1986]
jurors cannot disregard a party's reliance on expert opinions. There are
10
several court cases that cites this proposition. Neither supports the court
analysis. It report that the jury as the fact finder of fact, should
appropriately resolve factual disputes regarding a party's reliance
on hired expert. [Provident Am Ins. Co. v. Castaneda 988 S.W. 2d, 189,
194-95, Tex. 1998] In the legal sufficiency analysis and concluded there
was no evidence that the defendant acted in bad faith. [State farm Lloyds
v. Nicolum, 951 S.W. 2d 444;-448-50 Tex. 1997] By an expert which is
possibly would have change the decision. The test from the designated
expert and his history as expert Mr. David Hall would have used the
findings, if Rodriguez was at fault. Abstraction of Justice, hindering the
investigation to Penal Code; Destroying Evidence [CLK REC P.184-
233,464-47]
Texas Statues: Obstructing 38.05; to destroy even one thing to prevent
hindering from being investigated or inspected. Obstruction of Justice
generally requires some affirmative action, and not merely a failure to
assist law enforcement. However the related concept of"contempt of the
court might apply if you fail to comply with a court order. Blockage and
something that obstructs. A criminal offense that involve interference
through words or actions, until the proper operations of a court or
officer's of the court shall be guilty of an offence. Persons are charged
under this statute based on allegations that a defendant intended to
11
interfere with an official proceeding by doing things such as destroying
evidence.
Reply Issue 9-12: The reviewing court erred in favorable to the jury's
Findings no negligence as the matter of law when the appellant filed
For no withstanding the jury's verdict. Jones filed a Motion for not with
Standing the jury's verdict. There was an objection to the jury's findings
Concerning for the findings of fact and conclusion of law in the
[CLK REC P. 411,415; 551] Not withstanding and Motion for New Trial.
The court disregard all the evidence contrary to the trial courts finds,
And if there is any remaining evidence which would support the verdict
or judgment the trial courts judgment must be up held. But if not the
removal of all the contrary evidence this court find as absence of any
evidence which would support the verdict or judgment a contrary
conclusion to the verdict or judgment is required as a matter of law.
A notice of appeals was filed with the trial clerk within 10 days after the
date of the judgment and not withstanding the jury's verdict and a
motion for a new trial by Jones that is required by the Texas Rules of
civil Procedure Rule 353. The record contains not only the findings of
facts and conclusion of law but also a transcript and a statement of facts.
Jones in her brief filed in the court of appeals attacks the judgment of the
12
Trial court because the evidence is not sufficient to support the
judgment granting appellee favor a take nothing judgment. Texas rule
of civil procedure it longs been the rule in order to review on appeal it
was not necessary that exceptions to findings of fact and conclusion
of law had been taken where there was a statement of facts in the
records. The trial court failure because their was an issue to the jury
as to whether a removal permit. The court of appeal held that the trial
court was not required to submit as issue to the jury or this matter or
because Jones testimony was positive and concerned a matter which the
Jury could have contradicted had it been untrue. We hold since there
was testimony which tended to discredit or impeach, Jones testimony
the credibility of her testimony was for the jury to pass upon, and as
issue of fact was raised which should have been submitted to the jury.
Concerning the offer of proof and bill of exception Jones filed in the trial
Court on February 24th,2014 in trial court transcript volume 2 of 3
p. 29-34. There was an exception as to the exhibits Jones sought to admit
during trial. Jones stated that the lease agreement is another account
where Rodriguez was parent liability and its showing. The trial court
asked Jones if she is admitting the lease Rodriguez lease, Jones replies it
is to show reliable and responsible. An offer of proof is a disclosure
13
made out of the hearing of the jury, or the substance, purpose, and
relevancy of evidence the offering, party seeks to introduce. Evid. C. 354
There is a reason to offer of proof; (a) to testified to the judge before a
ruling is made to admit the evidence; (b) to testified to the judge after a
ruling is made to reconsider the ruling and; (c) to create a record for
appeal that the judge was specifically aware of the native of the evidence
being excluded. Rule 103 provides that an offer of proof must be made
before the jury is charged. Jones demonstrate the nature of the evidence
until enough specificity so that the appellant court can determine its
admissibility. Jones were the witness to stand in testimony in question
and answer form. The evidence was mark in exhibit and request its
inclusion in the record on appeal. Jones urge her admission to the
evidence a ruling must be secured in order to preserve error. The court
of appeal stated it was no harm in the exclusion of the evidence, even if
such exclusion was erroneous. Informal bill is a tool of error
preservation and is used to inform the appellant court of the substance
of evidence which the trial court refused and that something that was
not permitted into evidence at trial. A formal bill of exception provides
proof of something that occurred at the trial but isn't reflected in the
records. There is no magic words which should be used in a formal bill
14
the rules do require that the bill be sufficient specific which Jones used
to make the trial court aware of which of the trial courts actions or
ruling is being complained of in Jones brief. No evidence of Rodriguez
was responsible for children. This is why the lease agreement was offer
of proof to the trial judge to show proof children is in the household of
Rodriguez and during Jones original petition for temporary retraining
order and temporary injunction and permanent injunction order and
damages done by Rodriguez and his family which states them in his
household due to not to be able to add no new cases to the case which
is already in court as Jones was instructed to do by the police to as the
judge to amend them into the ongoing case but was not able to but the
family were still included as Rodriguez responsible for any one in his
household and the damages they sought to do or obtained to do. The
court of appeal stated that there was no credited evidence issuance of
a citation or ticket. Jones and Rodriguez were both issue a Vehicle Crash
Report to fill out and return in ten days. Jones turned her vehicle crash
report which was given to both Jones and Rodriguez. Rodriguez never
turn his vehicle crash report in as instructed. The CR-2 must be filled
with TxDOT not later than 10th day after the date of the crash. A person
commits an offense if the person does not file the report with TxDOT.
15
Jones vehicle crash report is in [CLK REC P. 93 -103]
PRAYER:
For this reasons stated in the motion, appellant Elsie O. Jones asks the
Court to grant this motion for rehearing, withdraw its opinion, reverse
the trial court's judgment, and either render judgment for appellant
Elsie 0. Jones or reverse and remand for new trial. Including any
alternative relief (prayer for appellant's brief) Only the relief requested
can be granted by the court.
Respectfully submitted,
PRO SE PLAINTIFF
ELSIE 0. JONES
2347 DOUGLAS STREET
#6106
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78741
(512) 809-7698
EMAIL ADDRESS: kevinandelsieiones(a>vahoo.com
PRO SE FOR APPELLANT
ELSIE 0. JONES
APPELLANT
16
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH APPELLANT:
I certify that this document contains 3,757 words, as indicated by the
words counts function of the computer program used to prepared it, and
including the issue presented for review and statement of facts and
argument and reply issue and prayer, certificate of service, certificate of
compliance.
PRO SE PLAINTIFF
ELSIE 0. JONES
2347 DOUGLAS STREET
#6106
AUSTIN, TEXAS 78741
(512) 809-7698
EMAIL ADDRESS: kevinandelsiejones(a>yahoo.com
PRO SE FOR APPELLANT
ELSIE 0. JONES
APPELLANT
rlfaii Ov*)oimi
17
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing instrument
was served on the counsel of records in this appeal in with the Texas
Rules of Civil and Appellant Procedure by certified mail and return
receipt requested, on the 31st day of August 2014 as follows.
FREY, NAVARRO & WHORTON P.L.L.C.
MS. MONICA JO QUINENE AGUON
Texas Bar No. 24073827
Address: Trinity Plaza I, Suite 550
750 E. Mulberry Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78212
Telephone: (210) 732-9800
Fax: (210) 568-6871
Email Address: monica(5)fhwlawfirm.com
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
JOSE G. RAMIREZ-RODRIGUEZ
APPELLEE
•^Ol]^=>
PRO SE FOR APPELLANT
ELSIE O. JONES
APPELLANT
18