David C. Goad v. the County of Guadalupe, Texas

Court of Appeals No. 04-14-00497-CV
Trial Court No. 12-1923-CV
IN THE
FOURTH COURT OF APPEALS - ~/
SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS ^>
r J — 5"p
DAVID GOAD ^ ^C 3
Appellant, i
v.
THE COUNTY OF GUADALUPE, I EXAS,
Appellc.
OBJECTION TO APPELLEE'S MOTION TO REMAND TO TRIAL
COURT FOR NON-SUIT
TO Till-; HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS:
1. Appellant. David Goad (Goad), brings this OBJECTION to convince the Court that
dismissing this case is not in the best interest ofjustice, the appellant (his daughters), or the
people of Texas.
2. Found in Goad's Notice of Appeal "5. This appeal involves hand upon the Court hy
the District Clerk Dehi Crow, ami other powerful Giuukihtpe County Ojiicials." Since this
appeal was filed. Goad has learned that his alligations noted above are an understatement to say
the least.
3. Now. we have Matthew Tepper. attorney for the appelle. brings yet more deception.
I le claims. "I attempted to confer" in his Certificate of Conference. I suppose this means he
"thought" about conferring, therefore he considers tlie attempt made. Please order Mr. Tepper to
produce his phone records to 830-515-2052 or anything else, which disproves his deception. I
have never in my life. living in five states over nearly 60 years witnessed attorneys and public
officials who lie. cheat, and steal as they do here. Why. because no one in this slate has the brass
to change course.
4. The properly in question is a lot at Zuehl Airfield Goad purchased under the fexas Gift
to Minors Act. to assist his two daughters through college. This Act provides that Goad is
custodian of said property until his two daughters reach the age of 21 years. Shortly after the
purchase of this lot. a fence was placed across the front of it blocking all public access to a public
use roadway. Yes. the same as if Goad had came to your home and placed a fence blocking your
access to the road. 1 know this is impossible, it is unheard of. and it is against the law.
HOWEVER. NOT IN TEXAS.
5. Nowhere in the United States can one find this blocking public access (a legal search
was conducted from the U.S. Supreme Court down through each state) except in Texas. Nol only
can it not be found elsewhere, some idiot had already tried the same litigation in Jupe v. City of
Schertz, 604 S.W.2d 405 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1980). Both subdivision map(s) in the Jupe
case and at Zuehl Airfield contained the exact same wording regarding access to public use
roadways (grants provided by the lawful landowner (subdivide]*)). Yet. the judge(s) allowed over
a million dollars to be spent on litigation costs, and il is still going on. In fact. 85 year old
Dorothy Golding and Goad are before this court on appeal from another Zuehl case surrounding
the same lot. BUT. the decision in Jupe upheld by this court supported Goad. BUT ignored by all
the judges!!!! ■
6. Not only did Guadaiupe County refuse to allow Goad multiple requests to protest the
taxes on a property, which had no public access (fenced out and landlocked), they named Goad's
two daughters in a lawsuit in which Goad was custodian and they had no authority to act while
under the age of 21. Then behind Goad's back they signed a tax agreement with one daughter to
pay the taxes while Goad was appealing said taxes. Goad's daughter feared losing the property
i
and had no authority to sign any agreement until see reached 21 years of age. The taxes then
doubled, and then, were reduced to less than Goad had first paid for the property. Did the
attorney from McCreary. Veselka. Bragg & Allen disclose this to the court. NO. why should he.
it was more money for his client? And. who is going to do anything about it?
7. Goad then filed a lawsuit for fraud and violations of his constitutional rights against
those at the appraisal district (Osborne Exhibit "A' and Strey) the actions of Judge Frieshanan in
said suit can only be described as fraud upon the Constitution of the United States, the court, and
his oath, see attached complaint. Exhibit "A". Motion for Fair Trial Venue Change, denied
without support of statue or law. Exhibit "li". and Motion to Reinstate After Dismissal. Please
read the judges comments found within the Agreed Record. Exhibit "C". Judge Friesenhahn
dismissed the case for lack ofjurisdiction because "When the documents were stored at the
appraisal district and sanitized the appraisal district was involved. I have no jurisdiction in this
case." Goad did not sue the district, he sued individually. Judge Eriesenhahn rejects all
Constitutional and Federal law by stating. "We're going by state law because we're in state court
not a federal court." while rejecting all case law Goad attempts to present. In addition. Judge
Friesenhahn rejects Goad's Motion for Fair Trial Venue Change by staling. "Theproblem is it is
a Fair Trial Venue Change motion and were not a trial. "A quick read of the new statute
(enacted in 2013) clearly reads its use is to remove the case upon presentation see TRCP 502.4.
(e). This is a small sample of the frauds Cioad has encountered in Guadalupe. Comal. and Bexar
Counties. i
8. Do to intimidation and fear my oldest daughter transferred her interest in the lot to her
younger sister the day she turned 21 years of age in December 2012. When Goad's second
daughter turned 21 in June of 2014. she fire-sold the property. The letters of threatened :
foreclosure for non-payment of taxes continued, so Goad presumes the new owner feared losing
the property and paid the taxes, penalties, court costs and other fees.
9. Not once did (load appear in court on this tax issue, not once would the court set a
hearing date (audio recorded) or otherwise address Goad's many motions, including, but not
limited to. Motion for Change of Venue. Special Exceptions and Motion to Dismiss. Request for
Jury Trial or even a setting notice. This is a pattern that has gone on for more than 6 years. A
pattern the slate judicial conduct committee and state bar association refuse to look into. Not
even Gregg Abbott would raise a hand when he learned first hand that Guadalupe County
Officials (district attorney and the sheriff) conspired to present fabricated evidence to a grand
jury for arrest warrants, all surrounding Zuehl Airfield and Goad. Gregg Abbott had the sworn
testimony (hearing before Guadalupe County Judge) of a man who was unaware his name had
ever been used to secure an indictment and further testimony concluded that the DA and Sheriff
fabricated a story and presented it to the grand jury. Just another case of fraud upon the court in
Texas!
10. Goad asks this court to allow this appeal to proceed for the good of all citizens within
Texas. Surely, if this is happening to one. it is happening too many.
11. Attorney. Tepper asserts under TRCP 162 that he can non-suit this case at this stage.
Goad disagrees. The statute is clear. "At any time before the plaintiffhas introduced all ofhis
evidence other than rebuttal, the plaintiff may dismiss a case, or take a non-suit which shall he
entered in the minutes." It is safe to say that this case has passed the point subject to TRCP 162.
Relying upon the intent of our legislators we have SPRADLIN v. JIM WALTER HOMES,
INC., 34 S.W.3d 578. 580 (lex. 2000) "Presuming that the language of the Texas Constitution
is carefully selected, we construe its words as they are generally understood. City of Beaumont
v. BouiUioH. 8%S.W.2d 143. 148 (Tex. 1995). We rely heavily on the plain language of the
Constitution's literal text. Republican Party v. Dietz. 940 S.\V.2d 86. 89 (lex. 1997): Edgewood
Iiulep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby, 111 S.\V.2d39|. 394 (Tex. 1989). Consistent with these fundamental
principles, we "give effect to all the words of a statute and [do] not treat any statutory language
as surplusage!.] if possible." Chevron Corp. v. Redmon. 745 S.W.2d 314. 316 (I ex.1987). We
avoid constructions that would render any constitutional provision meaningless or nugatory.
Hanson v. Jordan. 145 Tex. 320. NX S.\V.2d 262.
12. If you allow this appeal to takes its course, you too will understand why Goad is
bashing the judiciary in Texas. All Goad wanted was to provide his two daughters with funding
through college and that was taken away in this case and others cases surrounding that lot at
Zuehl Airfield.
REQUEST
13. Appellant. David Goad has two requests. 1. Order Attorney Tepper to
produce proofthat he "attempted" to confer with David Goad, then we can move for sanctions,
and 2. Allow David Goad to complete this appeal, you have only seen a sample of the facts.
ResDfietfullv submitted.
)avid Goad. Appellant Pro se
1154 Rivertree Drive
New Braunicls. Texas 78130
830-515-2052
Certificate of Service
I certify that a true copy of this OBJECTION TO APPELLEE'S MOTION TO REMAND
TO TRIAL COURT FOR NON-SUIT was served in accordance with rule 9.5 of the Texas
Rules of Appellate Procedure on each party on January 12. 2015 as follows:
McCreary. Vesclka. Bragg & Allen. P.C.
700 Jeffrey Way. Suite 1*0*0
Round Rock. Texas 78665
U.S. Mail
David (ioad
EXHIBIT "A
CAUSE NO. JSC4-4995
DAVID GOAD IN THE JUSTICE COURT
Plaintiff, §
V. § PRECINCT NO. FOUR
JAMIE OSBORNE
Defendant. GUADALUPE COUNTY. TEXAS
FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiff. David Goad, files this First Amended Complaint and will show the Court the
following:
1. Plaintiff, David Goad hereinafter known as "P-DG" resides at: i 154 Rivertree Drive.
New Braunfels, Texas 78130.
2. Defendant, Jamie Osborne, hereinafter known as "D-JO" whose work address is at:
3000 North Austin Street, Sequin, Texas 78155. She is being sued individually. This suit does
not include Guadalupe County.
3. The real property in question is a one acre parcel purchased under the Texas Gift to
Minors Act in September of 2007. Described as: A one acre tract ofland situated in Guadalupe
County, Texas oul ofthe Jose Flares Survey no. 63. Abstract no. 134. being part ofone ofthose
tracts conveyed to Dorothy Bitffmgton Golding and recorded in Volume 483. page 694 ofthe
deed records ofGuadalupe County, Texas.
4. Natalie Goad is the daughter of David Goad; she was a minor by statute at the time of
! the allegations set fourth herein.
\ 5. All exhibit's submitted (attached hereto), or submitted in future pleadings are
| incorporated into the pleading, motion, or document of which they are attached are incorporated
into and made a part of by reference.
, TEXAS
FACTS AND ALLEGATIONS
6. P-DG alleges that D-JO has acted in a manor, and-or commanded others {conspired) in
violation of clearly established federal law. and Texas State law to violate P-DG"s federally
protected rights and take his property
7. P-DG alleges: D-JO committed fraud, conspiracy, intentional or deliberate misconduct
which subjected P-DG to the deprivation of his federally protected rights. Some of the acts were
discretionary, however, others were not, and in no case, conducted in good faith.
8. P-DG alleges D-JO destroyed or otherwise, with or without conspiracy, "sanitized" the
files in which all documents supporting the allegations set fourth in this complaint could be
found. When "sanitized" is noted at the end or within a sentence, it means that document has
been removed from D-JO's records and all the tax records of Guadaiupe County.
9. D-JO failed to respond to her own Notice of Protest sent to P-DG on January i 4. 2008
"sanitized." Furthermore, D-JO failed to address P-DG's response to said notice "sanitized.."
10. D-JO failed to provide P-DG a hearing to protest his taxes after she was noticed on
August 3. 2009 "sanitised" August 4.2009 "sanitized:' and on May 31.2013 "sanitized." !iu;s
denying his due process rights.
11. On April 15, 2014, P-DG meet with D-JO at her office to review the documents
within the file regarding the subject properly based upon an FO1A request See Exhibit "A". Not
one notice from D-JO or P-DG was found or noted in the documents provided to P-DG that day
"sanitized:'
12. On April 15,2014, P-DG explained to D-JO that the property in question was fenced-
out in 2008 from all public access and therefore its value went to zero, as the property was
landlocked and fenced out by a combination of public officials and others. It was clear during
our conversation that D-JO was aware of the federal litigation (RICO) P-DG had brought against
her friends and others.
13. On April 15,2014, P-DG explained to D-JO that she needed to reevaluate (appraise)
the property to reflect the facts due to ongoing litigation over the unpaid taxes. As a result of no
action on the part of D-JO, a judgment was issued reflecting false/fraudulent tax evolutions
against P-DG and his daughter Natalie. At that time Natalie was 20 years old. A young woman
who graduated at 15 years old and at age 19 she graduated from UT Austin with a double major.
A young woman that now has a judgment against her because of D-JO.
14. On April 15, 2014, at the request of D-JO, P-DG signed a "Request for Field
Inspection " See Exhibit "B" in order that D-JO may enter upon said property for evolution
purposes. D-JO did not submit her findings, if any, to alter the Tax case.
15. On April 15, 2014, P-DG provided to D-JO a photograph depicting an aircraft on the
subject property with a fence across it. See Exhibit "Cl & C2," C2 was created by hand (exact
copy of text) due to my email program making it unable to print with the text included (to large).
16. D-JO and others valued the property at the following:
a. S 12,500.00 before and after the property had no access (fenced out).
; b. Increased to $21,713.00 for 2013.
c. Decreased to $ 10,956.00 (noted on tax roles) for 2014, however, when P-DG was at D-
JO*s office on April 15,2014, the value was noted at under $9,000.00 for 2014? We must take
notice that property values all across Texas have risen well in the last year!
JAMIE QSBORNE HAS NO IMMUNITY WHATSOEVER
17. Government officials performing discretionary functions generally are granted a
i qualified immunity and "shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does
not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable
person would have known. "Harlow v. Fitzgerald U.S. 800,818,102 S.Ct. 2727, 73 L. Ed. 2d
396 (1982).
18. Government officials acting within their discretionary authority are immune from
civil damages if their conduct does not violate clearly established statutory- or constitutional
fill
rights of which a reasonable person would have known. "Evett v. Detntff, 330 F.3d 681,687 (5
Cir. 2003).
19. To determine whether an official is entitled to qualified immunity, two questions
must be answered: (1) whether the plaintiff has alleged a violation of a clearly established
constitutional right; and (2) if so, was the defendant's conduct objectively unreasonable in light
of clearly established law at the time of the incident. See Hare v. City of Corinth, 135 F.3d 320,
325 (5th Cir 1998) (citing Colston v. Barnhart (5th Cir. 1997).
20. To overcome a claim of qualified immunity, a plaintiff must establish that the right an
official is alleged to have violated was "clearly established."' i.e., sufficiently clearly defined that
" a reasonable official would understand that what he is doing violates that right." Anderson v.
Creighton, 483 U.S. 635,640 (1987).
STATE LAW DOES NOT TRUMP FEDERAL LAW
21. In Howlet v. Rose 496 U.S. 356,375 (1990). "state ("including Texas." added by P-
DG) law may not immunize § 1983 defendants Congress has subjected to liability/' Therefore,
any failure of P-DG to exhaust remedies under state law, immunities whether governmental or
official (stale law), or any other state rule or law is void in this case, except of course, court room
procedures. The only reason any attorney would attempt to inject Texas State law to gain
-4-
immunity in this case, would be to extract attorney fees from the hard working Guadalupe
County tax payers. P-DG reserves to later move for sanctions against any attorney who would
play/played such a game.
22. The United States Supreme Court in Gomez v. Toledo 466 U.S. 635 (1980). found
that §1983 itself requires only two essential allegations: "By the plain terms of §1983. two-and-
only two allegations are required in order to state a cause of action under that statute. First, the
plaintiff must allege that some person has deprived him of a iederal right. Second, he must allege
that the person who deprived him of that right acted under color of state or territorial law." and
now in Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct 1937 (2009) §1983 complaints now must contain factual
allegations constituting a plausible claim.
23. The United States Supreme Court has established that pro se complaints are subject to
"less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and should be liberally
construed in the plaintiffs favor, see Erickson v. Pardus, 111 S. Ct. 2197,2200 (2007).
24. The United States Supreme Court, in Felder v. Casey 487 U.S. 131,138 (1988),
stated in the same breath that while "[n]o one disputes the general and unassailable
proposition...that States may establish the rules of procedure governing iitigation in their own
courts[.]... by the same token, however, where state courts entertain a federally created cause of
action, " the federal right cannot be defeated by the forms of local practice."(quoting Brown
v. Western Ry., 338 U.S. 294, 296 (1949).
CONCLUSION
25. D-JO, acts under the color of state law in her acts and in concert with the same or
similar acts by many officials from within Guadalupe County (Judge Steel, Judge Kirkendall.
Judge Old, Judge Sachtleben (aka The Black Robe Syndicate of Texas), Guadalupe County
District Attorney , Guadalupe County District Clerk, Debi Crow, Guadalupe County Sherriff
Zwicke. the altering ("sanitizing") of officials records by court clerks, DA. SherrilT. icourt
reporters etc. etc. and many others) which have deprived P-DG of property, due process rights,
and much, much more for the last seven years. These noted issues were all brought on as a result
of P-DG filing litigation under RICO against Guadalupe County Officials.
REQUEST JUDICIAL NOTICE
26. The following eases will prove that powerful Officials from Guadalupe Count} can
trump-up false criminal charges, have an innocent person put in jail, tortured, and do just about
anything they want to do to silence P-DG. It is for this reason that P-DG requests judicial notice
of said cases as a clear pattern exists. Furthermore, the jury trial in this case will explore the
details of these cases to link D-JO conspiracy with others (similar acts) who have the same goal.
Please take note of the following cases:
a. Goad v. Anderson SA08CA0674
b. Zuehl v. Goad 08-1872-CV
c. Goad v. Crow SA11CA1056-OG :
d. State of Texas v. Goad 09-0190-CR
e. State of Texas v. Goad C2008-1461C
f. Zuehl v. Goad 2010-C1 12496. appeal 04-11-00293-CV
g. Goad v. Wyatt JSC2-1000
27. Witnesses and evidence to be presented at the upcoming hearing on September 10.
2014. will provide more than ample facts to briny an indictment against D-JO. and others, from
even the most discriminating grand jurors.
-6-
LEGAL FRAMEWORK AND STATFMF.XTS OF FACT
Violations of U.S. Constitution, 4lh and 14th Amendment. Under Title 42 of the
United States Cod^ §1983. and 1985.
28. "Among the civil rights intended to be protected from discriminatory state
action by the Fourteenth Amendment are the rights to acquire, enjoy, own and dispose of
property. Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers ot the
Fourteenth Amendment as an essential precondition to the realization of other basic civil
rights and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee. Conroy v. Manos,
679 S.VV.2d 124,133 (Tex.App.-5lh Dist., 1984). Rights in property have long been
considered basic civil rights which cannot be taken away without just cause and due
process.
29. Due Process is that which comports with the deepest notions of what is fair and
right and just in law. U.S. Supreme Court Center, see
http://supreme.justia.com/constitution/amendment-05/16-due-process.html Due
process is violated if a practice or rule "offends some principle ofjustice so rooted in the
traditions and conscience of our people as to be ranked as fundamental. Snyder v.
Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97,105 (1934). Procedural due process requires the government
to adhere to its own rules. United States ex rel. Accardi v. Shaughnessy, 347 U.S. 260,
268, 74 S. Ct. 499, 503, 98 L. Ed. 681 (1954) and recognize that the constitutional right to
be heard is a basic aspect of the duty of government to follow a fair process ot decision-
making when it acts to deprive a person of his possessions. Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67,
80, 92 S. Ct. 1983, 1994, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556 (1972).
-7-
30. The over assessing of said property was intended 10 facilitate the taking of that
property from the plaintiff. Among the civil rights intended to be protected from discriminatory
state action by the Fourteenth Amendment are the rights to acquire, enjoy, own and dispose of
property. Equality in the enjoyment of property rights was regarded by the framers of the
Fourteenth Amendment as an essential precondition to the realization of other basic civil rights
and liberties which the Amendment was intended to guarantee. Conroy v. Manos, 679 S.W.2d
124 (Tex.App.-5th Dist, 1984).Rights in property have long been considered basic civil rights
which cannot be taken away without just cause and due process.
31. A cause of action for a violation of the 14lh Amendment can come under Title
42 of the U.S. Code, which reads in part:
Sec. 1983. Civil action for deprivation of rights
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or
usage, of any State or Territory' or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes
to be subjected, any citizen of the United Stales or other person within the
jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...42
U.S.C.A. § 1983 (West 1981).
Sec. 1985. Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
"If two or more persons in any State or Territory conspire or go in
disguise on the highway or on the premises of another, for the purpose of
depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the
equal protection of the laws, or of equal privileges and immunities under the
laws; or for the purpose of preventing or hindering the constituted authorities of
any State or Territory from giving or securing to all persons within such State or
Territory the equal protection of the laws...or to injure any citizen in person or
property on account of such support or advocacy; in any case of conspiracy set
forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be
done, any act in furtherance of the object of such conspiracy, whereby another is
injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right
or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the parly so injured or deprived
may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or
deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators. 42 U.S.C.A. § 1985
(West 1981).
-8-
32. State judges and state courts are repositories of state power, and state court
action may in some cases amount to a deprivation by a state of rights guaranteed by
Fourteenth Amendment to the federal constitution. Gay v. Heller, 252 F.2d 313
(C.A.5.Fla., 1958). Congress enacted § 1983 to provide an independent avenue for
protection of federal constitutional rights. Conroy v. Manos, fn. 1. The remedy was
considered necessary because state courts were being used to harass and injure individuals,
either because the state courts were powerless to stop deprivations or were in league with
those who were bent upon abrogation of federally protected rights. Pulliam v. Allen, 466
U.S. 522,104 S.Ct. 1970,1980,80 L.Ed.2d 565 (1984)
REQUESTS
PLAINTIFF THEREFORE respectfully requests that the Court enter a judgment
including, but not limited to:
The costs of actual losses and the maximum amount of damages allowed by the court in
which this issue is finally decided, currently not less than $ 10,000.00.
All attorney's fees and court costs for bringing this Complaint;
All other relief in law and in equity as may be proven at trail; and
Plaintiff requests a jury trial.
I submitted
*l5avid Goad, Plaintiff'pro se
1154 Rivertree Drive
New Braunfels, Texas 78130
(830)515-2052
-9-
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ;
The undersigned certifies that on September 3, 2014. this FIRST AMENDED
COMPLAINT was served on all parties in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as
sei out herein below:
Jeremy R. Sloan. Esq.
16500 San Pedro., Suite 410
San Antonio. Texas 78232
U.S. Mail
- 10-
DAVID GOAD
1154 Rivertrcc Drive
New Braunfels, Texas 78130
1983 remedies^ gmail.com
830-515-2052
April 1.2014
FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT REQUEST
TO: The County Appraisal District for Guadalupe Count)
jo.sbomc@guadalupead.org
Sequin. Texas 78155
Dear Ms. Osborne:
Pursuant to 5 U.S.C. §522 el seij., and Tex. Gov"t. Code. Sec. 552.022221 S.W.3d 639, 643 (Tex.
2007). The file will reflect Judge Friesenhahn refused DG's request to subpoena witnesses
and documents. DG believes this refusal was a result of the possibility that information
brought forward from the refused subpoenas would have resulted in the issuance of I
I
indictments against the defendant. We must also add: Evidence is not necessary to resolve a
plea to the jurisdiction when the plaintiffs petition affirmatively demonstrates the courts
jurisdiction. Miranda, 133 S.W.3d at 226-27. A plea to the jurisdiction is proper to i
challenge a suit brought in one court when another court has exclusive jurisdiction. Jansen v.
Fitzpatrick, 14 S.W.3d 426,430-31 9Tex.App—Houston (2002). LAST BUTNOTj
LEAST. If a court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction, it does not have the power to transfer the
case to the appropriate court. State v. Benavides, 772 S.W.2d 271,273 (Tex.App—Corpus
Christi 1989, writ denied). This also tells us that Judge Friesenhahn had no authority to
grant the defendants Motion for Summary Judgment, or deny ALL of David Goad's motions
upon signing the Dismissal for lack of.Subject Matter Jurisdiction! ;
5. Unless it is clear from the pleadings that the court does not have jurisdiction over
the controversy, the court should retain the case. Peek v. Equipment Serv., 779 S.W.2d 802
(Tex 1989). If the jurisdiction! defect is a pleading defect, it can be cured by amendment. In
this case, Judge Friesenhahn denied all of DG's motions, which included his FIRST
AMENDED COMPLAINT.
6. There is no supporting law. that because the appraisal district "stored" records a
suit could only be brought against the appraisal district (or any public entity). Furthermore, a
i
person or entity is not a party to a lawsuit unless named as a party. See TRCP 79: Mapco,
Inc. v. Carter, 817 S.W.2d 686,687 (Tex 1991). DG clearly plead that the suite did hot
include the appraisal district.
CONCLUSION
7. There exist no lawful grounds for Judge Friesenhahn's actions. These actions are
loud and clear in the AGREED RECORD.
REQUEST j
I
1
8. Plaintiff, David Goad, asks Judge Frieshanan to reinstate this case, void ail jothcr
motions, and then transfer this case to a small claims court wherein David Goad can obtain I
I
i
justice. ;
]
RcspeptfuWy submitted. \
DAVID GOAD. Plaintiff
1154 Rivertree Drive
New Braunfcls. Texas 78130
830-515-2052
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on Sept 24, 2014, this MOTION TO REINSTATE
AFTER DISMISSALwas served on all parties in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil
Procedure as set out herein below: I
Jeremy R. Sloan, Esq.
16500 San Pedro., Suite 410
San Antonio, Texas 78232
U.S. Mail
David Goad
CAUSE NO. JSC4-4995
IN THE JUSTICE COURT
DAVID GOAD §
PLAINTIFF §
§
PRECINCT NO. 4
VS. §
§
JAMIE OSBORNE §
GUADALUPE COUNTY, TEXAS
DEFENDANT §
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT JAMIE OSBORNE'S MOTION TO DISMISS
ON THIS DAY the Court considered Defendant Jamie Osborne's Motion to Dismiss. The
Court, having reviewed the Motion, the response if any and arguments of the parties, if any, is of
the opinion that the motion is well taken and should be granted.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED ADJUDGED AND DECREED that Plaintiffs lawsuit is
DISMISSED for want of Subject Matter Jurisdiction.
Signed on
"onor^fcle^udge Presiding
J*
CAUSE NO. JSC4-4W5
DAVID (JOAD § IN 11 IE JUSTICE COURT
Plaintiff. §
v. Jj
§ PRECINCT NO. FOUR
JAMIE OSBORNE s<
Defendant. $
vj GL ADA1.UPI COUNTY. TEXAS
AGREED RECORD OF SEPTEMBER UK 2014 HEARING
This AGREED RECORD of^he September 10. 2014. hearing comes unopposed by
the defendant or Judge Friescnhahn. Therefore, in the name of justice, it is agreed, this record
shall memorialize the hearirm that dav.
1. Judge: We are here on two cases David Goad v. Erick Stre>. and David Goad v. Jaime
Osborne.
2. Judge: We arc going lo address the motions in the order received by the court.
3. Goad: Objection. The Motion for Fair Trial and Venue Change should be addressed first.
it sets precedence over all other motions because it is writ ten law. and I can find no exception
to that law. a new law. first adopted one year ago. it is also a constitutional issue.
4. Judge: The problem is it is a Fair Trial Venue motion and were not at trial.
5. Judge: The motion is denied.
6. Sloan: There are three grounds in the partial summary judgment in which my clients are
i
entitled to. governmental immunity, substantive due process, and procedural due process. Mr.
Goad did not participate in either, as he did noi make a protest in the relevant years. This is a
lawsuit that should be llled against the appraisal district and not my clients. Mr. Goad's
pleadings are groundless and should not be allowed by this court.
7. Goad: I object to everything that wasn't plead in his first responsive pleading. We are here
on an issue of immunity. This whole hearing should be focused upon that. I will speak on
i
federal law because it is over state law. The state cannot make a law the trumps federal law
I
as I have stated in my pleadings. If" I could have brought in wimesscs today this thingi would
be over with and all we would have to do is assemble a jury for damages. Hopefully, and
indictment would be issued.
I 8. Goad: (Reads from his First Amended Complaint): #6 thru £24. 1 provide both law from
the United States Supreme Court and the 5lh District which is over this court. This is all based
upon federal law.
9. Judge: We're going by state law because we're in state court not a federal court.
10. Goad: Can I pull up federal case law to prove my point. I have all the books here on the
federal case law that allows state courts to hear these matters. Also, state law does not illow
immunity when someone acts in a fraudulent manner.
11. Judge: We are here for two motions, immunity and subject matter jurisdiction. | agree
that state law does not trump federal law, but we are not in federal court we are in state court.
12. Goad: I would like to cite federal law from the books 1 brought from the number one
man quoted in the U.S. Supreme Court. You cannot erase federal law because we are in a
state court.
13. Judge: The problem is 1 don"t have jurisdiction in this case. This case has to be in district
court. You say you sued them individually and not the appraisal district, its got to be in
district court. I cannot hear a case against the appraisal district, sorry. When the documents
were stored at the appraisal district and sanitized the appraisal district was involved.j 1 have
no jurisdiction in this case.
Restxictfuftv submitted.
DAVID GOAD. Plaintiff
1154 Rivertree Drive
New Braunlels. Texas 78130
830-515-2052
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that on Sept 24. 2014, this AGREED RECORD was
served on all parties in accordance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure as set out herein
below: ;
Jeremy R. Sloan, Esq.
16500 San Pedro.. Suite 410
San Antonio. Texas 78232
U.S. Mail
David Goad