exhibits to the writ of mandamus txsupct
TRANSCRIPT
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
1/56
09-1013
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
2/56
www.msfraud.org
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
3/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
4/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
5/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
6/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
7/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
8/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
9/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
10/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
11/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
12/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
13/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
14/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
15/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
16/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
17/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
18/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
19/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
20/56
ONSTABLE JOHNNY TODD
4
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
21/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
22/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
23/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
24/56
CAUSE NO. 05-09-00935-CV
ROBERT JOHN WRIGHT,Plaintiff,
vs.
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.,MICHAEL SWARTZENDRUBER Esq.,CONSTABLE JOHNNY TODDin his individual capacity,
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUSTICES: Thomas, ONeill, Murphy
_____________________________________________________________________________
AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY COSTS
_____________________________________________________________________________
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this date personally appeared and properly
identified as Robert John Wright, who, being first duly sworn did depose and state as follows:
1. My name is Robert John Wright. I am over the age of eighteen and have personal
knowledge of the facts contained in this affidavit as experienced, witnessed and documented, as
they are true and correct.
2. Appellant ROBERT JOHN WRIGHT, (Appellant/Plaintiff/Wright) hereby files
this affidavit pursuant toRule 20.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, stating under oath,
he is indigent and cannot pay, in whole or in part, any costs for court records, discovery,
transcripts, audiotapes, filing fees or any other resultant costs or materials required to perfect his
appeal and provides the following:
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
25/56
3. Appellant is restrained from paying any of the costs associated with this appeal
strictly due to the damages suffered as a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of
defendant/appellees.
Trial Court Grants then Overrules Plaintiffs Inability to Pay Costs
4. On December 12, 2008, in good faith and under penalty of perjury, Wright filed,
and the trial court granted, his Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs. Defendants contested and a
hearing was held four months later on 4/13/09 at 9 a.m.
5. Wright arrived a few minutes before 9 a.m. At 9:23, the entire floor of the
courthouse appeared empty except for one attorney and her client. Wright went next door to the
restroom and was back in less than one minute. When Wright returned, counsel for Fulbright
and Todd were seated in the courtroom. Shortly thereafter the judge entered. Wright also found
it odd that when his case was called, neither attorney for the defendants announced to the court
who they were - or who they represented. Appellant believes, but can not yet confirm, that the
judge and the defense counsel were engaged in a closed chamber meeting immediately prior to
the commencement of the hearing.
Evidence
6. During the hearing, Wright submitted a letter from a state-funded healthcare
provider who has been treating him for severe Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and Legal Abuse
Syndrome caused specifically by defendants acts, resulting in a drastic decline in his ability to
read, write, comprehend, or follow instructions. The letter confirmed they are providing services
at no cost due to Wrights indigence. Wright also submitted a notarized affidavit from a friend
declaring she pays for all of Wrights basic living expenses. Months of Wrights bank
statements submitted showed a constant account balance of $.56.
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
26/56
Income
7. Wright testified he receives approximately $50.00-$100.00 per month to pay the
costs of a mortgage servicing fraud website he founded.
8. In response, Robert Davis, counsel for Defendant Todd asked: Isnt that a
website that teaches people how to file lawsuits for free? Davis made that statement knowing it
was false and Wright alleges it was used to create, and obviously did create, judicial prejudice
against Wright. Wright invites this Court to visit the website referenced below to determine
whether Davis statement was true - or another documented deliberate misrepresentation to the
court.
9. Contrary to Davis bald assertion, Wright has always discouraged victims from
representing themselves, even knowing they have a remote chance of finding ethical and
competent legal representation that understand and comprehend the civil and criminal intricacies
of the Ponzi scheme that caused the nations mortgage meltdown.
10. Wrights website http://www.msfraud.org, is widely recognized as a credible
source for information and support to those victimized by mortgage and securities fraud and
others who want to learn about the progress being made to combat this massive fraud. The site is
listed on legal websites as a resource for information and is visited by all levels of courts,
including Supreme Courts in the United States and other countries, lawyers, law firms, judges;
government, regulatory and law enforcement agencies, and has been mentioned in news articles
and on radio and television programs.
11. Describing MSFraud.org in a 2007 article written for the United States
Foreclosure Network, the author/lawyer wrote: This site alone should keep everyone in the
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
27/56
industry up late at night. Nonetheless, it is a must-readto gain insight into just how serious this
problem has become.1
Trial Court Refuses to Strike Inadmissible Evidence - Claiming this is Not a Criminal Trial.
12. Counsel for Defendant Todd submitted alleging Wrights assets listed during his
2005 attempt to file bankruptcy. Wright objected, and moved the court to strike those documents
as they were outdated, and more importantly, most of the assets listed were stolen, damaged,
discarded or had to be given away as a direct result of Defendants unlawful acts.
13. The court responded to Wrights request to strike by stating on the record: You
cant move to strike; this isnt a criminal trial.
Wright Has No Taxable Income.
14. The damages suffered as a result of ten (10) years of the unlawful conduct leading
up to and during the unlawful eviction have extinguished Wrights ability to make a living.
During the wrongful eviction, Constable Todd DENIED Wright and his roommates request to
collect the tools of their trades. Their tools and all of Wrights supplies needed for his business
were never recovered. Interestingly, someone involved in the unlawful eviction found the key to
Wrights lockbox and took his birth certificate, baptism certificate, Social Security card and his
mortgage, but seemingly left the rest of the contents.
15. When it should have been obvious that Wright has no income, the court inquired
about taxes. When Wright told the court he does not meet the IRS minimum income
requirements to file, the trial judge became visibly upset. (On three (3) separate occasions, the
IRS has verified under IRS rules that Wright does not meet the income requirements and
1
http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=5794&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.cfm&SECTION=Article_Library
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
28/56
instructed him not to file a tax return.) The court also appeared visibly disgusted by Wrights
severely damaged economic status, but made no inquiry as to its root cause.
16. Despite all the evidence supporting Wright is indigent, the court ordered Wright
to pay the $527.00 filing fee and any other costs associated with his case. This shocking abuse
of discretion amplified an already unconscionable burden by forcing Wright to use 100% of
months of future income to pay court costs.
Appellant is forced to go on emergency food stamps.
17. The court ordering an indigent to pay court costs forced Appellant to apply to the
government-sponsored food stamp program, which was approved on July 6, 2009.
In further compliance with TRAP 20, Appellant provides the following:
18. Appellant does not qualify for a loan to pay court costs. Aside from Wrights
inability to work due to the damages suffered, Appellants former credit score of 798 was
another casualty of what the Texas Eastern District court confirmed inFederal Trade
Commission vs. EMC Mortgage Corporation2,No. 4:08-cv-338 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008) as
only one of Defendant EMCs illegal practices. It is important to note that the FTC
investigation, lawsuit and paltry $28 Million dollar settlement, which critics allege were paid
from taxpayer Bailout funds, came about after Wright was flown to Washington D.C. in 2005 to
meet with four (4) FTC attorneys who, upon seeing the exhaustive evidence in Wrights case
against EMC, decided to investigate.
19. It is also worth noting that earlier this year the FTC contacted Wright to inform
him they had been monitoring MSFraud.org looking for additional EMC victims and asked if he
would create a link to the FTC on his website, and ask those with evidence of EMCs breach of
the FTC settlement to contact them. Countless people nationwide responded.
2FTC File No.0623031
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
29/56
ARGUMENT
20. Rule 25.1(a) provides that a party may perfect an appeal merely by filing a notice
of appeal. Providing security for costs is no longer a prerequisite to invoking the court of
appeals' jurisdiction. Thus, an indigent party is no longer precluded from perfecting appeal and
challenging the trial court's order sustaining a contest to the party's affidavit of indigence. If a
party is required to pay for preparation of the appellate record and does not do so or make
arrangements to do so, Rule 35.3 excuses the clerk and court reporter from filing the record and
Rule 37.3(b) provides that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. (In re Arroyo,
No. 98-0152 (Tex. decided Oct. 15, 1998)
21. The Texas Supreme Court concluded however, that: This avenue of appeal is
not adequate, however, unless the indigent party can obtain the record pertaining to the trial
court's ruling sustaining the contest to the affidavit of indigence. The court of appeals can and
should, on motion or its own initiative, require the clerk and court reporter under Rules
34.5(c)(1) and 34.6(d), respectively, to prepare and file the portions of the record necessary to
review an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence. This has been the practice for
obtaining the relevant record for mandamus review of such orders. The burden of obtaining the
relevant portions of the record in this manner should be minimal. If the court of appeals
determines that the order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence should be reversed, the
appellant can then obtain a full recordunder Rules 34.5(c)(1) and 34.6(d), and can supplement
his or her briefing under Rule 38.7. Pending resolution of an appellant's challenge to an order
sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence, Rule 35.3(c) precludes the court of appeals from
dismissing the appeal for appellant's failure to file the complete record, since the failure in such
circumstances would not be appellant's fault. Arroyo (emphasis added).
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
30/56
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Appellant respectfully requests this Court
GRANT this Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs. In the alternative and depending on the costs,
Appellant requests this Court grant a six-month leave until Appellant can collect the funds
available to pay for this appeal.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
/s/: Robert John Wright_______Robert John Wright
SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this ______ day of September
2009 to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
____________________________________Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
31/56
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the _28_ day of September, 2009, a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs was forwarded to opposing counsels listedbelow by first-class mail.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________Robert John Wright AppellantP.O. Box 797762Dallas, Texas 75379(972) 955-6735
WM. LANCE LEWISState Bar No. 12314560Quilling, Selander, Cummiskey & Lownds, P.C.2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800Dallas, Texas 75201(214) 880-1827(214) 871-2111 (Fax)ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION
ROBERT J. DAVIS
State Bar No. 05543500Matthews, Stein, Shiels, Pearce, Knott, Eden & Davis, L.L.P.8131 LBJ Freeway, Suite 700Dallas, Texas 75251972-234-3400972-234-1750ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE TODD
DAVID N. KITNERState Bar No. 11541500
STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4400Dallas, Texas 75202214-651-4300214-651-4330 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI AND MICHAELSWARTZENDRUBER
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
32/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
33/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
34/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
35/56
1
CAUSE NO. 05-09-00935-CV
ROBERT JOHN WRIGHT,Plaintiff,
vs.
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.,MICHAEL SWARTZENDRUBER Esq.,JOHNNY TODD in his individual capacity,
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUSTICES: Thomas, ONeill, Murphy
APPELLANTS REQUEST FOR CERTIFICATION andSUPPLEMENTAL AFFIDAVIT OF INABILITY TO PAY COSTS OF APPEAL
BASED ON NEW EVIDENCE
Jurisdictional Statement
This court has jurisdiction to make an independent judicial determination on Appellants requestto certify that appellant is indigent under TRAP 20.1(h)(2) which states:
If the affidavit of indigence is filed in an appellate court
and a contest is filed, the court may: (2) decide the contest based
on the affidavit and any other timely filed documents.
____________________________________
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS
COUNTY OF DALLAS
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this date personally appeared and properly
identified as Robert John Wright, who, being first duly sworn did depose and state as follows:
1. My name is Robert John Wright. I am over the age of eighteen and have personal
knowledge of the facts contained in this affidavit as experienced, witnessed and documented, as
they are true and correct.
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
36/56
2
2. Plaintiff/Appellant, Robert John Wright, hereby files his supplemental Affidavit
of Inability to Pay Costs (herein Affidavit) and Request for Certification based on new evidence
as defined by TRCP 145(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (2005 Tex. Sup. Ct.
Amendment Misc. Docket No. 05-9156), which is recognized by the State of Texas, and states
under oath: I am indigent and cannot pay, in whole or in part, any costs for court records,
discovery, transcripts, audiotapes, filing fees or any other resultant costs or materials required to
perfect his appeal of the trial courts final judgment entered on July 1, 2009, and provides the
following:
FACTS
3. Appellant realleges and incorporates all statements and exhibits contained in his
previous December 11, 2008 Affidavit filed with the trail court, along with his September 28,
2009 Affidavit filed with the appellate court as if fully set forth herein.
Trial Court Grants then Overrules Plaintiffs 12/11/09 Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs
4. On December 11, 2008, in good faith and under penalty of perjury, Appellant
filed and the trial court duly granted his Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs. Appellee/Defendants
contested and a hearing was held four months later on 4/13/09. The trial court sustained the
contest despite Defendants failure to provide any evidence or testimony to rebut Appellants
sworn affidavit. On 4/14/09, the trial court issued an order, but failed to state any reason or legal
basis for its decision.
5. On September 29, 2009, Appellant timely filed a separate affidavit with the
appellate court.
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
37/56
3
6. On October 7 & 9, 2009, Appellees informally contested Appellants affidavit of
indigence.
7. On October 29, 2009, Appellant filed this request for certification and
supplemental affidavit based on new evidence.
NEW EVIDENCE
8. The trial court ordering Appellant (an indigent person) to pay court costs, forced
Appellant to apply to the government-sponsored food-stamp program for emergency relief.
Appellant attests that his application for food stamps was granted on July 6, 2009 and
incorporates by reference to Exhibit A, a true and correct copy of the approval and food stamp
card issued and recognized by the State of Texas as new prima facia evidence to establish
Appellant is receiving government entitlements based on his indigency.
9. TRCP Rule 145(a) defines a party who is unable to afford costs as a person who
is presently receiving a governmental entitlement based on indigency or any other person
who has no ability to pay costs.
10. Arguing further, Appellant discovered after his approval of government
entitlements, that under the Texas Department of Human Services Guidelines, Appellant was and
remains well below the monthly income standard of $1,127.00 and therefore qualified to receive
his government entitlement: (a) at the time he filed his December 2008 affidavit and; (b) at the
time the trial court overruled Appellants indigence.
ARGUMENT
11. In 2008, TRAP 20.1(c)(1) was revised to clarify that an affidavit of indigence
filed to proceed in the trial court without advance payment of costs is insufficient to establish
indigence of appeal; a separate affidavit must be filed with or before the notice of appeal.
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
38/56
4
12. Appellant timely filed a separate affidavit with the appellate court and entered on
the docket on September 29, 2009. TRAP 20.1(d)(2) directs the appellate clerk that: [If] the
affidavit of indigence is filed with the appellate clerk, the appellate clerk must send notice to the
trial court clerk, court reporter and all parties stating the deadline for filing a contest. The
appellate court docket does not show the trial court was notified.
13. In addition, if Appellants filing his affidavit is in error, Subdivision 20.1(c)(3)
was revised to provide that an appellate court must give an appellant who failed to file the proper
appellate indigence affidavit notice of the defect and an opportunity to cure it before dismissing
the appeal or affirming the judgment on that basis. (Id.) This Court did not send Appellant
notice of defect or opportunity to cure any defect.
14. Moreover, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures also address the filing of an
affidavit of indigence in the appellate court under TRAP 20.1(h)(2) and TRAP 20.1(d)(2).
Contesting an Affidavit of Indigence
15. If a party chooses to contest Appellants affidavit, that party may contest the
government entitlement portion only, and must provide irrefutable evidence to disprove
Appellant is receiving government entitlements.
A partys affidavit of inability that attests to receipt of government
entitlement based on indigency may be contested only with respect
to the veracity of the attestation. (Id. TRCP 145 (d)).
16. The clerk, court reporter and court recorder did not contest Appellants affidavit.
Under TRAP 20.1(e) the contest must be filed on or before the date set by the clerk if the
affidavit was filed in the appellate court.
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
39/56
5
Appellants Inability to Pay Costs of Appeal
17. Rule 25.1(a) provides that a party may perfect an appeal merely by filing a notice
of appeal. Providing security for costs is no longer a prerequisite to invoking the court of
appeals' jurisdiction. Thus, an indigent party is no longer precluded from perfecting appeal and
challenging the trial court's order sustaining a contest to the party's affidavit of indigence. (Id.)
18. Formerly, if a party is required to pay for preparation of the appellate record and
does not do so or make arrangements to do so, Rule 35.3 excuses the clerk and court reporter
from filing the record and Rule 37.3(b) provides that the appeal may be dismissed for want of
prosecution. (In re Arroyo,No. 98-0152 (Tex. decided Oct. 15, 1998)
19. The Texas Supreme Court concluded however, that: This avenue of appeal is not
adequate, however, unless the indigent party can obtain the record pertaining to the trial court's
ruling sustaining the contest to the affidavit of indigence. The court of appeals can and should,
on motion or its own initiative, require the clerk and court reporter under Rules 34.5(c)(1) and
34.6(d), respectively, to prepare and file the portions of the record necessary to review an order
sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence.
20. If the court of appeals determines that the order sustaining a contest to an
affidavit of indigenceshould be reversed, the appellant can then obtain a full recordunder Rules
34.5(c)(1) and 34.6(d), and can supplement his or her briefing under Rule 38.7. Pending
resolution of an appellant's challenge to an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence,
Rule 35.3(c) precludes the court of appeals from dismissing the appeal for appellant's failure to
file the complete record, since the failure in such circumstances would not be appellant's fault.
(In re Arroyo, No. 98-0152 (Tex. decided Oct. 15, 1998) (emphasis added).
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
40/56
6
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Wrights believes his new evidence
confirming that he is receiving government entitlements as recognized by the State of Texas
meets his burden of proof that he is indigent and therefore respectfully requests this Court certify
that he is indigent and GRANT Wrights Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs in all respects and
that an Order on same be issued forthwith.
FURTHER AFFIANT SAYETH NOT.
___________________________________Robert John Wright Plaintiff/Appellant
SUBSCRIBED TO AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME on this _30th_ day of October 2009
to certify which witness my hand and seal of office.
__________original stamped__________Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
41/56
7
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument, minus the exhibit, was
delivered to the Defendants in the above cause by first class mail to the addresses below on
October _30_, 2009.
/s/: Robert John WrightRobert John Wright Plaintiff
POB 797762Dallas, Texas 75379972-955-6735
WM. LANCE LEWISState Bar No. 12314560Quilling, Selander, Cummiskey & Lownds, P.C.2001 Bryan Street, Suite 1800Dallas, Texas 75201(214) 880-1827(214) 871-2111 (Fax)ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION
ROBERT J. DAVISState Bar No. 05543500
Matthews, Stein, Shiels, Pearce, Knott, Eden & Davis, L.L.P.8131 LBJ Freeway, Suite 700Dallas, Texas 75251972-234-3400972-234-1750ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT CONSTABLES
DAVID N. KITNERState Bar No. 11541500
STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4400Dallas, Texas 75202214-651-4300214-651-4330 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI AND MICHAELSWARTZENDRUBERT: 214 855 8000F: 214 855 8200
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
42/56
8
CAUSE NO. 05-09-00935-CV
ROBERT JOHN WRIGHT,Plaintiff,
vs.
EMC MORTGAGE CORPORATION,FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI L.L.P.,MICHAEL SWARTZENDRUBER Esq.,CONSTABLE JOHNNY TODDin his individual capacity,
Defendants.
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
FIFTH DISTRICT OF TEXAS
JUSTICES: Thomas, ONeill, Murphy
ORDER
Came on to be considered Appellants Request for Certification and supplement to his
Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs based on new evidence, and the Court, having considered
Appellants new evidence and argument, finds Appellant is indigent as recognized by the
STATE of TEXAS and therefore his Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs should be GRANTED in
all respects.
IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Appellant is
certified as an indigent person and his Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs is hereby GRANTED.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the trial courts
order on Appellants indigence is VACATED and all monies tendered to the trial court and
appellate court by Appellant are to be returned to him forthwith.
SIGNED this the _______ day of NOVEMBER, 2009.
________________________________JUSTICE PRESIDING
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
43/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
44/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
45/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
46/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
47/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
48/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
49/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
50/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
51/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
52/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
53/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
54/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
55/56
-
8/9/2019 Exhibits to the writ of mandamus Txsupct
56/56