Anda di halaman 1dari 70

Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 1 of 70 PageID 1

, (T >
IlIS iF i CT COL;(]__________ 'I
NOIU JlfJ<N DISTRICT OF TEXAS I

I
1 United States District Cour r--..!.F..:..IL:::::.FD ,
OR IG
~~~
Fo the Northern Dlotrict o11 m M 2 9- 201;-l
(0-~l2~
RANDALL TODD TOWNSEND CLERK, U.S. DIST!~~COURT
By _ _-c:::---::lLUJ.
Claimant CASE#
Deputy
'-----..:.:...:.' ______________
--- _
v.
STATE OF TEXAS Claim for Trespass
CITY OF HAMILTON Claim for Trespass
ROBERT MCGINNIS On the Case
JASON YARBROUGH
CHANCE LOGAN
BECCYROWE
RANDY MILLS
CHARLES SPARKS
Defendants

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS

PARTIES

1. Comes now, Randall Todd Townsend,("Townsend") a people of Texas, hereinafter plaintiff, in

this court of record and complains of each of the following: State of Texas, a corporation; City

of Hamilton, a corporation; Robert McGinnis,("McGinnis") Jason Yarbrough,("Yarbrough");

Chance Logan,("Logan"); Beccy Rowe,("Rowe"), Randy Mills,("Mills"), Robert Sparks,

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 1 ofll


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 2 of 70 PageID 2

(Sparks); hereinafter defendants who are each summoned to answer said action in a plea of

trespass and trespass on the case to wit:

INTRODUCTION

2. As detailed herein, each defendant exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law by either

directly, or through an agent, or in concert with another, did cause claimant to be unlawfully

and forcefully carried away and imprisoned1 against his will, without jurisdiction or good

cause. Defendants in defiance of a court order infringed on claimants constitutional and natural

rights and committed numerous felonies in so doing. A notice of felonies is included as Exhibit

B.
3. This action is a direct challenge to the jurisdiction' of the defendants named herein.

4. From the moment he was taken away, claimant Townsend, under color oflaw, has been kept in

actual or constructive imprisonment in spite of a previous ruling' of a court of record ordering

defendants to release claimant from its jurisdiction and ordering defendants to pay claimant

$46,620.00 in lawful money plus interest accrued monthly.

5. As documented herein, defendants worked in unison to hinder the free right of locomotion of

claimant Townsend under color of law for a second time.

1 Imprison: To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition Imprisonment: .. .it may be in a
locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual application of any physical agencies of restraint
(such as locks or bars), as by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. Black's Law Dictionary, 5thEdition
2 Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910; Joyce v. US, 474 F2d 215; Bradbury v. Dennis, 310 F.2d 73 (lOth Cir. 1962);
Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416; Latana v. Hopper, I 02 F. 2d 188; Melo v. United States, 505 F. 2d I 026 Middleton v. Low
(1866), 30 C. 596, citing Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607, 608; Elliott v Peirsol, I Pet. 328,340,26 U.S. 328,340, 7L.Ed.
164 (1828) Rescue Army v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles, 171 P2d 8; 331 US 549,91 L. ed. 1666, 67 S.Ct. 1409
3 See Exhibit C.

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 2 of 11


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 3 of 70 PageID 3

6. As documented herein, each defendant conspired to obstruct the natural and constitutional

rights of claimant in violation of 18 USC 241. 4

7. As documented herein, each defendant deprived claimant of his natural and constitutional

rights in violation of 18 USC 242.

PROPER VENUE

8. As detailed herein, this court is the proper venue, because state employees are using their

positions of authority, under color of law, to impede and obstruct due process of law from

claimant. The state employees are ignoring a court order under color of law.

9. Damages exceed $75,000.

10. Additionally, defendants are in violation of multiple federal statutes. A Notice of Felonies

filed under the Private Attorney General Act is attached to this action as Exhibit B.

SPECIFICS

11. At all times mentioned in this action, each defendant is the agent of the other, and in doing the

act alleged in this action, each is acting in course and scope of said agency. The following

paragraphs describe what the defendants, under color oflaw, either acted or failed to act as

obligated.

12. Each defendant exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law. Each defendant acted in concert

with the remaining defendants to effect the unlawful loss of liberty of claimant Townsend.

13. Each defendant acted in such a way, or failed to act in such a way, that claimant has been

deprived of his liberty, reputation, and right of free locomotion.

4 See Exhibit B- Notice of Felonies

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 3 ofll


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 4 of 70 PageID 4

14. On February 4'\ 2016 claimant was traveling through Hamilton, Texas.

15. Claimant Townsend had caused no injury5 to STATE OF TEXAS or any of the defendants.

16. Claimant is not a "US citizen", "US Person or "corporation", but is a people of Texas and the

united states of America.

17. Defendant Yarbrough while working for the Hamilton City Corporation followed and

unlawfully detained claimant.

18. Claimant Townsend at no time consented to the jurisdiction of Yarbrough, the corporation of

Hamilton, the county of Hamilton, nor the State of Texas, nor any other of the defendants in

said case. On the contrary, claimant specifically 'informed defendant Yarbrough that Yarbrough

was infringing on claimant's free right of travel and provided a copy of an affidavit of his right

of travel.

19. Claimant Townsend is not a "driver" who operates a "motor vehicle"6

20. Defendant Yarbrough kidnapped claimant in defiance to a court order the claimant was to be

released from defendants' jurisdiction.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS ON THE CASE

21. Paragraphs 1 through 20 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

22. Claimant filed a counterclaim7 in the Hamilton County District Court, a court of record8

5 "For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of his exercise of
his constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 486 F. 945
6 18 U.S. Code 31- Definitions (a) (6) Motor vehicle.- The term "motor vehicle" means every description of carriage or other
contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of
passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.
7 See Exhibit C - Original Counterclaim
8 There shall be established in each county in this State a County Court, which shall be a court of record;- Texas
Constitution, Article 5 Section 15

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page4ofll


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 5 of 70 PageID 5

nwnbered under the statutory system of nwnbering due to ignorance of the clerk as case

nwnber CV04615 although claimant's counterclaim was filed as an action at law. Said

counterclaim challenged jurisdiction of the State of Texas and nwnerous other defendants.

23. All counterdefendants in the above mentioned counterclaim defaulted failing to provide any

evidence for the record of defendants' authority over a people of Texas and the united states of

America.

24. Defendants by default agreed with claimant's claims stated in claimant's counterclaim.

25. Defendants were ordered in said case to pay damages to claimant's.

26. Defendants are vindictively prosecuting claimant's for having lost a previous case against

claimant that awarded claimant

27. One of claimant's stated claims in the above mentioned action at law informed all that he was

not a "driver" of a "motor vehicle" as defined in federal statutes.

28. Claimant had decided when his previous "drivers license" 9 expired, he would no longer renew

it, because he did not operate a motor vehicle 10 on public roadways for commercial purposes.

29. The clerk of the court has submitted to a court an affidavit 11 falsely stating the claimants

"driver's license" had been "suspended or revoked" although a previous court ruling upheld

people are can not be obligated to obtain a "driver's license".

30. Said affidavit is in direct violation of 18 USC 1621 a crime punishable up to five years in

prison and is included in the notice offelonies as Exhibit B.

9 "...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts
are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
10 See footnote on page 4 of! 0.
11 See Exhibit E

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 5 of 11


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 6 of 70 PageID 6

TIDRD CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS

31. Paragraphs 1 through 30 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

32. Defendants conspired against claimant rights together, under color oflaw, in a joint effort to

deprive claimant of said rights knowing defendants had previously lost a case claimant had

filed against defendants wherein counterdefendants were ordered to pay claimant $41,620.00

plus interest accrued monthly at 1.5%.

33. The case number under the statutory system of numbering as case number CV04615 filed in

the Hamilton County District Court included an order inviting all parties to the action to

provide as evidence just cause why said orders of the court were invalid.

34. The order to show cause allowed thirty (30) days for any party to provide evidence of just

cause.

35. None of the defendants in case number CV04615 presented any evidence to the court why

the orders of the court should not be upheld, agreeing with said orders of the court by default.

36. The Texas Constitution guarantees a court of record in every county.

37. No statutory court is authorized to review the decisions of a court of record as its, 'judgment

of a court of record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the

judgment of this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts

an end to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203.

[cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218,255 (1973)]

38. Defendant McGinnis claimed he did not get a copy of the court order that ruled in favor of

claimant in his previous case, although claimant has a recorded conversation between

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 6 of 11


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 7 of 70 PageID 7

claimant and Defendant Rowe at the time that he presented a copy of the judgment of the

court or record in case number CV04615. The transcript of this 38 second conversation of

Apri120'\ 2016 is included as Exhibit G.

39. Defendant Rowe executed an affidavit making a claim and swearing to a deputy clerk by the

name of Erin Craig as revealed in the transcript of the 1 minute, 17 second video recorded of

the conversation between the claimant and defendant Rowe. The transcript is included as

Exhibit H.

40. Defendants conspiracy in is direct violation of 18 USC 241, a crime punishable up to ten

years in prison and is included in the notice offelonies as Exhibit B.

FORTH CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS

41. Paragraphs 1 through 40 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

42. Defendants deprived claimant of his rights under color oflaw. It is well established that a

'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197 La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244,

248), noris 'Code' "Law" (In Re Selfv Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in point of fact in Law, a

concurrent or joint resolution' oflegislature is not "Law," (Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179

N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56 P.2d 136, 137; State ex rei. Todd v. Yelle, 7

Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All codes, rules, and regulations are for government

authorities only, not human/Creators in accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and

regulations are unconstitutional and lacking due process ... " (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S.

Department of Labor, 769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void

for ambiguity in their failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 7 of 11


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 8 of 70 PageID 8

same of fair notice, identifYing only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives,

subdivisions, and property of government. "The connnon law is the real law, the Supreme Law

of the land, the code, rules, regulations, policy and statutes are "not the Jaw." (Selfv. Rhay, 61

Wn 2d 261)

43. As such, once defendants were informed through a prior action at law that claimant did not

consent to their jurisdiction as required in a republic, defendants were in violation of 18 USC

242, deprivation of rights under color oflaw. Said violation is included in the Notice of

Felonies as Exhibit B.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS ON THE CASE

44. Paragraphs 1 through 43 are incorporated as though fully stated herein.

45. On the June 20'h,2016 claimant was forced under duress to appear before defendant Mills for a

"pretrial hearing" which took place in the kitchen break room of the city hall rather than the

municipal court room which was usual.

46. Claimant again objected to the inferior court's jurisdiction.

47. Defendant Mills knew or should have known that he did not have the authority of a judge,

because "the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer, and not in a

judicial capacity." (Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376. 154 SE 579, 71 ALR 604 (1930)).

48. In spite of claimant's objections, defendant Mills scheduled claimant for trial on August 1",

2016 contrary to law which requires any judge to get the consent of a people to be moved from

the common law and held accountable to statutes or codes. This has long been the purpose of

arraignment. The goal of arraignment is to get people being charge in violation of code to

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 8 ofll


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 9 of 70 PageID 9

consent to the code by entering a plea. Claimant at no time entered a plea.

49. Defendant Mills entering a plea on behalf of claimant without the claimant's consent is a false

statement that would have to be presented to jury which is in violation of 18 USC 1621, 18 USC

242, 18 USC 2384 included in the Notice of Felonies as Exhibit B.

REQUEST FOR RELIEF

50. For that cause of action therefore claimant brings his suit.

51. WHEREFORE, claimant requests relief and judgment against defendants as follows:

52. WHEREFORE, claimant prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:

53. For First Cause of Action $50,000.00.

54. For Second Cause of Action $1,000.00 per day from the day of arrest until the day the issues

before this court are settled rounded up to the next full day.

55. For Third Cause of Action $1,000.00 per day from the day of arrest until the day the issues

before this court are settled rounded up to the next full day.

56. For Fourth Cause of Action $2,000.00 per day from the day of arrest until the day the issues

before this court are settled rounded up to the next full day.

57. For Fifth Cause of Action, $15,000.00.

58. That the court enter a declaratory judgment ordering the State of Texas and all its subdivisions,

municipalities, counties townships, villages, towns or any other subdivision falling under the

jurisdiction of Texas including and City of Hamilton to update its records removing claimant

Townsend from its jurisdiction;

59. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants have acted contrary to constitutional

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 9 ofll


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 10 of 70 PageID 10

right, power or privilege;

60. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants actions were in excess of statutory

jurisdiction, authority and short of statutory right;

61. That the court pennanently enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs lawful right of

free travel;

62. That the court enter a judgment dismissing the cause numbered CPD216031 01-0 dated March

31, 2016 brought before the inferior court not of record;

63. That the court grant claimant such other and further relief as the court deems proper;

64. For interest as allowed by law;

65. For cost of suit;

66. I declare under penalty of perjury in the United States of America that the foregoing facts are

true and correct to the best of my knowledge.

July 29'\ 2016, Hamilton County, Texas.

Randall Todd Townsend


c/o 600 S. Bell St.
Hamilton, TX [76531]

Please serve defendants.

State of Texas City of Hamilton


Service of Process 200 East Main St.
Secretary of State Hamilton, Texas 76531
James E. Rudder Building

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 10 ofl1


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. aL
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 11 of 70 PageID 11

1019 Brazos, Room 105


Austin, Texas 78701
Robert McGinnis Jason Yarbrough
204 East Main St. 204 East Main St.
Hamilton, TX 76531 Hamilton, TX 76531
BeccyRowe Chance Logan
204 East Main St. 204 East Main St.
Hamilton, TX 76531 Hamilton, TX 76531
Randy Mills Charles Sparks
204 East Main St. 608 W. Main St.
Hamilton, TX 76531 Hamilton, TX 76531

Actions for Trespass, Randall Todd Townsend Page 11 ofll


Actions for Trespass on the Case v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 12 of 70 PageID 12

Exhibit A.l Law of the Case

LAW OF THE CASE

1. The law of the case is decreed as follows:

2. The State of Texas is a corporation operated by the the Massachusetts state. "The
government, by becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty so far as respects the
transactions of the corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived
from the charter." Bank of United States v. Planters' Bank of Georgia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat.
904 904 (1824) The inferior court is a subdivision of said corporation.

3. The United States of America was established as a union of republican states in which the
powers of sovereignty are vested in the people and are exercised by the people, either
directly, or through representatives chosen by the people, to whom those powers are
specially delegated. In re Duncan, 139 U.S. 449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v.
Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162,22 L.Ed. 627. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition,
p.626

4. Texas state was established as a republic.

5. The law provides that once State and Federal Jurisdiction has been challenged, it must be
proven. Main v. Thiboutot, 100 S. Ct. 2502 (1980).

6. Jurisdiction can be challenged at any time and once challenged, cannot be assumed and
must be decided. Basso v. Utah Power & Light Co., 495 F 2d 906, 910.

7. "... there is, as well, no discretion to ignore that lack of jurisdiction." Joyce v. US, 474 F2d
215.

8. "A court lacking jurisdiction cannot render judgment but must dismiss the cause at any
stage of the proceedings in which it becomes apparent that jurisdiction is lacking."
Bradbury v. Dennis, 310 F.2d 73 (1Oth Cir. 1962)

9. The burden shifts to the court to prove jurisdiction. Rosemond v. Lambert, 469 F2d 416.

10... .if the issue is presented in any way the burden of proving jurisdiction rests upon him
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 13 of 70 PageID 13

Exhibit A.2 Law of the Case

who invokes it Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188;

11. "When it clearly appears that the court lacks jurisdiction, the court has no authority to
reach the merits. In such a situation the action should be dismissed for want of
jurisdiction." Melo v. United States, 505 R 2d I 026

12. Court must prove on the record, all jurisdiction facts related to the jurisdiction asserted.
Latana v. Hopper, 102 F. 2d 188; Chicago v. New York, 37 F Supp. 150.

13. "No officer can acquire jurisdiction by deciding he has it. The officer, whether judicial
or ministerial, decides at his own peril." Middleton v. Low (1866), 30 C. 596, citing
Prosser v. Secor (1849), 5 Barb.(N.Y) 607,608.

14. "Where a court has jurisdiction, it has a right to decide any question which occurs in the
cause, and whether its decision be correct or otherwise, its judgments, until reversed, are
regarded as binding in every other court. But if it acts without authority, its judgments
and orders are regarded as nullities. They are not voidable, but simply void, and form no
bar to a remedy sought in opposition to them, even prior to a reversal. They constitute
no justification, and all persons concerned in executing such judgments or sentences are
considered in law as trespassers." Elliott v Peirsol, 1 Pet. 328, 340, 26 U.S. 328, 340,
7L.Ed. 164 (1828)

15. "Thus, where a judicial tribunal has no jurisdiction of the subject matter on which it
assumes to act, its proceedings are absolutely void in the fullest sense of the term. "
Dillon v. Dillon, 187 P 27.

16. "A court has no jurisdiction to determine its own jurisdiction, for a basic issue in any
case before a tribunal is its power to act, and a court must have the authority to decide
that question in the first instance." Rescue Army v. Municipal Court ofLos Angeles, 171
P2d 8; 331 US 549,91 L. ed. 1666,67 S.Ct. 1409.

17 ....at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the
sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects... with none to govern
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 14 of 70 PageID 14

Exhibit A.3 Law of the Case

but themselves ..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall419, 454, l LEd 440, 455
@DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

18. The very meaning of'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.
[American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511 , 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L. Ed.
826, 19 Ann. Cas. 1047.]

19. The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the
rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4
Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 lOC Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3,
228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]

20. A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the eye
of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute
justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.l86) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is
reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.

21. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which could abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491]

22. The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated
under the name oflocal practice. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24.]

23. Republican goverrunent. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the
people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen
by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S.
449, 11 S.Ct. 573,35 L.Ed. 219; Minorv. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162,22 L.Ed.
627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]

24. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance
thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United
States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 15 of 70 PageID 15

Exhibit A.4 Law of the Case

bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary
notwithstanding. Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.

25. Conspiracy against rights: If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or
District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the
same; or If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of
another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or
privilege so secured - They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this
section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual
abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may
be sentenced to death. [18, USC 241]

26. Deprivation of rights under color of law: Whoever, under color of any law, statute,
ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to
different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or
by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall
be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily
injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire,
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death
results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include
kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or
imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death. [18,
USC242]
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 16 of 70 PageID 16

Exhibit A.5 Law of the Case

27. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns
with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page
318.]

28. COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its
authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose
of hearing and determining issues oflaw and fact regarding legal rights and alleged
violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its
powers in the course oflaw at times and places previously determined by lawful
authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

29. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics,
and may have a fifth. They are:

A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the


person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.
220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,
Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.
220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,
Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory
and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga.,
24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A.
229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 17 of 70 PageID 17

Exhibit A.6 Law of the Case

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383;
The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v.
U.S., D.C. Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E.
229, 23l.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas
Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37
F. 488, 2 L.RA. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.J[Black's
Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

30. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any
holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].

31. The people of this state do not waive their sovereignty to the agencies which serve them.

32. If any claim, statement, fact, or portion in this action is held inapplicable or not valid,
such decision does not affect the validity of any other portion of this action.

33. The singular includes the plural and the plural the singular.

34. The present tense includes the past and future tenses; and the future the present, and the
past the present.

35. The masculine gender includes the feminine and neuter.

36. "For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty
imposed upon one because of his exercise of his constitutional rights."

Sherar v. Cullen, 486 F. 945

37. People are not persons and excluded from status that employ the term person or persons.

38. TABLE OF AUTHORITIES -PERSON

"This word 'person' and its scope and bearing in the law, involving, as it does, legal
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 18 of 70 PageID 18

Exhibit A. 7 Law of the Case

fictions and also apparently natural beings, it is difficult to understand; but it is


absolutely necessary to grasp, at whatever cost, a true and proper understanding to the
word in all the phases of its proper use ... A person is here not a physical or individual
person, but the status or condition with which he is invested ... not an individual or
physical person, but the status, condition or character borne by physical persons ... The
law of persons is the law of status or condition." -- American Law and Procedure, Vol
13, page 137, 1910.

The following case citation declares the undisputed distinction in fact and at law of the
distinction between the term "persons," which is the plural form of the term "person,"
and the word "People" which is NOT the plural form of the term "person." The above-
mentioned "real party in interest" is NOT a subordinate "person," "subject," or "agent,"
but is a "constituent," in whom sovereignty abides, a member of the "Posterity of We,
the People," in whom sovereignty resides, and from whom the government has
emanated:

"The sovereignty of a state does not reside in the persons who fill the different
departments of its government, but in the People, from whom the government emanated;
and they may change it at their discretion. Sovereignty, then in this country, abides with
the constituency, and not with the agent; and this remark is true, both in reference to the
federal and state government." (Persons are not People). --Spooner v. McConnell, 22 F
939,943:

"Our government is founded upon compact. Sovereignty was, and is, in the people"
--Glass v. Sloop Betsey, supreme Court, 1794.

"The United States, as a whole, emanates from the people ... The people, in their
capacity as sovereigns, made and adopted the Constitution ... " --supreme Court, 4 Wheat
402.

39. "While sovereign powers are delegated to ... the government, sovereignty itself remains
with the people"-- Yick Wo v. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, page 370.

40. The Definition of Contempt of Constitution is as follows: Contempt of Constitution is a


Sovereign Crime, Committed Against the Sovereign Person(s) whom such Constitution
Represents, whether such Sovereignty be a Monarchy, an Oligarchy, or a Republican
Form of Government in its direct representation of the People thereof itself, being
ultimately therefore the Very People themselves. For Purposes of Contempt of
Constitution as is applicable to the proposed Constitution for the United States [of
America], Contempt of Constitution is the Sovereign Crime Committed against the
Sovereign People of the Several States of the United States, by their existence as within
a Republic, State by State, of the Several States thereof, for whom such Constitution
was First Ratified, September 17, 1787, first or ratifying Session only. The
Classification of Degrees and Types of Contempt of Constitution and like Crimes set
forth hereby is:
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 19 of 70 PageID 19

Exhibit A.8 Law of the Case

I. GENERAL CONTEMPT. Where Contempt has been Committed or Asserted, but may
have been done Ignorantly or Unknowingly. (Not a Defense). This includes Attempted
Contempt.
H. MALICIOUS CONTEMPT. Where General Contempt has been Repeated, so that
Ignorance of the Law is Clearly In No Sense An Excuse or Defense, or Contempt
Deliberately Committed with Afore-Knowledge, or where the Results of the Contempt is
Severe Against One or More Persons Victimized by it so that a Distinct Harm has
Befallen or Inevitably Will Befall such Person(s);
HI. TYRANNICAL MALICIOUS CONTEMPT. Contempt so strong that it is apparent
that the Author(s) ofTyrarmy Work(s) acts of Malicious Contempt, on a similar or
dissimilar basis, in an effort, no matter how small, to gain a Destructive Power over any
person within the proposed United States or its the Territory, or where a Corrupt Use, or
Active Taking-Part-In such Use, of Power, whether or not, by any marmer delegated,
whereby such Power may be used Maliciously toward any Citizen or any Person
coming or being under the Protection of the United States Constitntion as the same was
meant to truthfully apply to the People of the Several States, and of the Territory, and its
such District thereof.
IV. NOBLE CONTEMPT. (1) Noble Contempt of Constitution occurs when a person or
business is recognized and/or treated differently, either greater or lesser, under any
Operation of Law not in Pursuance to the Constitntion, than it is recognized for other
common or ordinary citizens, as well as for businesses. Noble Contempt also exists
wherein private citizens or business are elevated in statns above other common citizens
or business by either what they are provided as rights to be entitled above other Citizens
of equal merit to do, or by where they are regarded by some sense of fame already in
existence as to being given advantage(s) that other ordinary or common citizens or other
businesses under the same circumstances would not be provided -Noble Contempt also
includes Noble Contempt by Denobilization, which Denobilization is an Act of
Subjecting an Individual or even a Specific Populace to a Condition of Degradation or
Reduction in Statns or Importance under the Law, whether by Statute or by Common
Law (Practice By "Policy" is a Violation of the Constitution), in Favor of Not Reducing
All Citizens to be Affected thereby Equally, or Else Not Reducing Such Citizens At All.
This Jurisdictional Charge and all Penalties that may arise hereunder Applies to Both
Citizens and Non-Citizens ofthe United States.
(2) Noble Contempt is also Recognized as a Violation of the Constitution's Article I,
Section 9, Clause 8 for Officials of the United States central government, and/or Article
I, Section 10, Clause 1 for the governments of the Several States, or of either of them, as
the same prohibit such governments to issue or recognize Titles ofNobility, and Extends
to the British Titles of"Knight," "Gentleman," or the Title of"Esquire," which in
British hierarchy comes between Knight and Gentleman, and includes an official Title of
Lady, as in First Lady, not being an Lawful Office of the United States central
government, or of the Several States, either of them.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 20 of 70 PageID 20

Exhibit A.9 Law ofthe Case

V. NOBLE MALICIOUS CONTEMPT is the establishment ofNoble Contempt where


the Party or Parties involved in such Contemptuous Activity Refuse to Vacate such
Contempt and such Contempt can be shown to work a Hardship or Deprivation of the
Common Rights upon any other United States Citizen. This Jurisdictional Charge, and
all penalties hereunder, applies to both Citizens and Non-Citizens of the United States.

VI. NOBLE TYRANNICAL MALICIOUS CONTEMPT is the establishment of Noble


Contempt on a harsh and repetitive basis where the Party or Parties involved in such
Contemptuous Activity effectuate such Contempt to the degree that it represents a
Blatant Disregard for Basic Human Rights, Rights Embraced by the proposed
Constitution, where Gross Insensitivity toward the undue suffering of any United States
Citizen, which includes any person residing or having domicile in any of the several
States, is the result, and it is reasonably believed that such party or parties knew of the
UnConstitution[ality] of their acts, but proceeded with obvious contempt to continue
them at any cost, or where there exists a corrupt use of power in conjunction with such
Noble Contempt, whether or not, by any marmer, Delegated, that may be used
Maliciously as toward any Citizen of, or any Person under the Protection of, the United
States central government, or its- the Territory, when Fully Constrained under the Tests
at Article I, Section 8, Clause 18, under Article Ill, Section 2, Clause 3, and under
Article I, Section 8, Clause 15, or under the protection of a State's govermnent when not
so Constrained by any of the foregoing. Furthermore, Noble Tyrannical Malicious
Contempt may be Recognized as having been Committed in any event where the
Wanton Disregard for the Rights, Safety and Secureness of the Common People,
whether or not the same shall be considered Sovereign, is Enacted, as Represented by
the scientific formula written as"~ (#1) =Fro (TOTAL HUMANITY)," putting either
all or a great portion of humanity at risk of Life and/or Liberty, for the benefit of One, or
else an unlawful few, which may be representatively defined in analogical format, put in
antiquated-like, but clearly expressive terms as, "The Sum of Me is Equal to All of
Thee," expressed again, further as"~ (#1) =& >Fro" or "The Sum of Me is Equal to
and Greater than All of Thee." This Jurisdictional Charge and all Penalties that arise
hereunder, if any, applies to both Citizens and Non-Citizens of the United States, or
either of them, alike.

41. WHEREAS A 'Statute' is not a "Law," (Flournoy v. First Nat. Bank of Shreveport, 197
La. 1067, 3 So.2d 244, 248), nor is 'Code' "Law" (In Re Selfv Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261), in
point of fact in Law, a concurrent or 'joint resolution' oflegislature is not "Law,"
(Koenig v. Flynn, 258 N.Y. 292, 179 N.E. 705, 707; Ward v. State, 176 Okl. 368, 56
P.2d 136, 137; State ex rei. Todd v. Yelle, 7 Wash.2d 443, 110 P.2d 162, 165), as "All
codes, rules, and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in
accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional and
lacking due process ... " (Rodriques v. Ray Donavan, U.S. Department of Labor, 769 F.
2d 1344, 1348 (1985)); lacking Due process in that they are void for ambiguity in their
failure to specify their applicability to 'natural persons,' depriving the same of fair
notice, identifying only corporate persons rather, officers, agents, representatives,
subdivisions, and property of govermnent. "The common law is the real law, the
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 21 of 70 PageID 21

Exhibit A.Hl Law of the Case

Supreme Law of the laud, the code, rules, regulations, policy aud statutes are "not the
law." (Selfv. Rhay, 61 Wn 2d 261)

42. The Supreme Court of the United States of America has determined, "All codes, rules,
and regulations are for government authorities only, not human/Creators in
accordance with God's laws. All codes, rules, and regulations are unconstitutional
and lacking due process " Rodriques v. Ray Donavau (U.S. Department of Labor)
769 F. 2d 1344, 1348 (1985).

43. "Under our system of government upon the individuality aud intelligence of the citizen,
the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving
him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himsel1herself." Mugler v. Kausas 123 U.S.
623, 659-60.

44. "Statutes that violate the plain aud obvious principles of common right aud common
reason are nnll aud void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

45. "The Claim and exercise of a Constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime."-
Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486. 489

"If the state converts a liberty into a privilege the citizen can engage in the right with
impunity" Shuttlesworth v Birmingham, 373 USs 262

46. "Undoubtedly the right of locomotion, the right to remove from one place to auother
according to inclination, is au attribute of personal liberty, and the right, ordinarily, of
free transit from or through the territory of any State is a right secured by the 14th
Amendment and by other provisions of the Constitution."- Schactrnan v Dulles, 96 App
D.C. 287,293.

4 7. It is settled that the streets of a city belong to the people of a state aud the use thereof is
an inalienable right of every citizen of the state. Whyte v. City of Sacramento, 65 Cal.
App. 534,547,224 Pac. 1008, 1013 (1924); Escobedo v. State Dept. of Motor Vehicles
(1950), 222 Pac. 2d 1, 5, 35 Cal.2d 870 (1950).

48. This right of the people to the use of the public streets of a city is so well established aud
so universally recognized in this country, that it has become a part of the alphabet of
fundamental rights of the citizen. Swift v. City of Topeka, 23 Pac. 1075,1076,43 Kansas
671,674.
49. Every citizen has an inalienable right to make use of the public highways of the state;
every citizen has full freedom to travel from place to place in the enjoyment oflife and
liberty. People v Nothaus, 363 P.2d 180, 182 (Colo.-1961).

50. Case law shows that the "liberty" protected by the Fourteenth Amendment extends
beyond freedom from bodily restraint aud includes a much wider range of human
activity, including but not limited to the opportunity to make a wide range of personal
decisions concerning one's life, family, and private pursuits. See Meyer v, 262 US 390,
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 22 of 70 PageID 22

Exhibit A.ll Law ofthe Case

399; 43 SCt 625, 626; 67 LEd 1043 (1923), and Roe v Wade, 410 US 113, 152-153; 93
S Ct 705, 726-727; 35 LEd 2d 147 (1973). One of these life, family, private pursuits is
obviously driving.
51. "The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which the citizen cannot be deprived without
due process oflaw under the Fifth Amendment." Kent v. Dulles 357 U.S. 116, 125.
Reaffirmed in Zemel v. Rusk 33 US 1.
52. "The right of the citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, either by carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a city may
prohibit or permit at will, but a common right which he has under the right to life,
liberty, and the pursuit of happiness."- Thompson v Smith, 154 SE 579.
53. "License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority,
conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or
would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).
54. "Where an individual is detained, without a warrant and without having committed a
crime (traffic infractions are not crimes), the detention is a false arrest and false
imprisonment."
Damages Awarded: Trezevant v. City of Tampa, 241 F2d. 336 (11th ClR 1984)
55. "The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he
would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky.
420.
56. "The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it."
Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127
Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).
57. "A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton
v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.
58. "It is clear that a license relates to qualifications to engage in profession, business, trade
or calling; thus when merely traveling without compensation or profit, outside of
business enterprise or adventure with the corporate state, no license is required of the
natural individual traveling for personal business, pleasure and transportation."
Wingfield v. Fielder (1972) 29 CA3d 213.
59. "... those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess
cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v.
Collins, 51 N.E. 907,910
60. "An illegal arrest is an assault and battery. The person so attempted to be restrained of
his liberty has the same right to use force in defending himself as he would in repelling
any other assault and battery." (State v. Robinson, 145 ME. 77,72 ATL. 260).
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 23 of 70 PageID 23

Exhibit A.12 Law of the Case

61. Public ways, as applied to ways by land, are usually tenned "highways" or "public
roads," are such ways as every citizen has a right to use. Kripp v. Curtis, 11 P. 879; 71
Cal. 62

62. 18 USC 1621 -Whoever-

(1) having taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in
which a law of the United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will
testify, declare, depose, or certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration,
deposition, or certificate by him subscribed, is true, willfully and contrary to such oath
states or subscribes any material matter which he does not believe to be true; or

(2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or statement under penalty of peljury as


pennitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States Code, willfully subscribes as true
any material matter which he does not believe to be true;

is guilty of peljury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is
applicable whether the statement or subscription is made within or without the United
States.

63. 18 USC 2384- Seditious Conspiracy. If two or more persons in any State or Territory,
or in any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put
down, or to destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against
them, or to oppose by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay
the execution of any law of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any
property ofthe United States contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined
under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years, or both.

64. 18 USC 2381- Treason. Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war
against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United
States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not
less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $1 0,000; and shall be
incapable of holding any office under the United States.

65. "the judge of the municipal court is acting as an administrative officer, and not in a
judicial capacity." (Thompson v Smith. 155 Va. 376.154 SE 579,71 ALR 604 (1930)).
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A
(j - Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 24 of 70 PageID 24

IN TilE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF TEXAS

Civil Action No.

Randall Todd Townsend

Claimants

v.

Robert McGinnis, Jason Yarbrough, Charles Sparks

Chance Logan, Beccy Rowe, Randy Mills

Defendants.

NOTICE OF FELONIES

l. This is to serve as notice to all parties, this Notice of Felonies is hereby filed in the UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT OF NORTHERN TEXAS, a court of record, regarding
felonies committed by defendants against a people of Texas.
2. All felons will be prosecuted nnder the authority of the Private attorney General Act.
3. It is the manner of enforcement which gives Title 42 1983 its unique importance, for
enforcement is placed in the hands of the people. Each citizen acts as a Private Attorney
General who "takes on the mantel of the sovereign, guarding for all of us the individual liberties
enunciated in the Constitution".
4. "Judge Frank wrote that instead of designating the Attorney General, or some other public
officer, to bring an action, Congress can constitutionally enact a statute conferring on any non-
official persons, or on a designated group of non-official persons, authority to bring a suit...
even if the sole purpose is to vindicate the public interest. Such persons, so authorized, are, so
to speak, Private Attorney Generals." Associated Industries of New York State v. Ickes, 134
F.2d 694 (2d Cir. 1943). (Reference: CHAP. XXXI-An Act to protect all Persons in the
Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 1 of13
ExhibitB v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 25 of 70 PageID 25

United States in their Civil Rights, and furnish the Means of their Vindication, April 9, 1866-
Thirty-Ninth Congress. Session I., Ch. 31, 1866, starting on page 27 of the document and
continuing in that document.)
5. Defendant is not following Congressional Acts as to how words are to be defmed under "Legal
Error" of any administrative claims. Definition of Legal Error: "A mistaken judgment or
incorrect belief as to the existence or effect of matters of fact, or a false or mistaken conception
or application of the law." A reversible error usually refers to the "mistaken application of the
law" by a court, as where, for example, a court may erroneously apply laws and rules to admit
(or deny the admission of) certain crucial evidence in a case, which may prove pivotal or
dispositive to the outcome of the trial and warrant reversal of the judgment.
6. Complaint of ultra vires misbehavior by defendants. Ultra vires: Latin, meaning "beyond the
powers", describes actions taken by government bodies or corporations that exceed the scope of
power given to them by laws or corporate charters. When referring to the acts of government
bodies (e.g., legislatures), a constitution is most often the measuring stick of the proper scope of
power.
7. A constitution is designated as a supreme enactment, a fundamental act of legislation by the
people of the state. A constitution is legislation direct from the people acting in their sovereign
capacity, while a statute is legislation from their representatives, subject to limitations
prescribed by the superior authority. See: Ellingham v. Dye, 178 Ind. 336; 99 NE 1; 231 U.S.
250; 58 L. Ed. 206; 34 S. Ct. 92; Sage v. New York, 154 NY 61; 47 NE 1096.
8. Constitution extends to equal protection of the laws to people, not to interest. Taylor vs
McKeithen, 499 F.2d 893, C.A. La 1974.
9. The defendants named herein have acted against claimant in defiance of an order of a court of
record in Hamilton County District court in case number CV04615 and committed numerous
felonies delineated below.
10. For clarification of a number of issues at hand the following is provided to clarify some facts of
law.
11. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns with his
regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page 318.]

Notice of Felonies Townsend


Exhibit B v.
State of Texas et. al.
------------~--------
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 26 of 70 PageID 26

12. COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its authority,
consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose of hearing and
determining issues of!aw and fact regarding legal rights and alleged violations thereof, and of
applying the sanctions ofthe law, authorized to exercise its powers in the course oflaw at times
and places previously determined by lawful authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92
S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

13. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics, and may
have a fifth. They are:

A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of
the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227,
229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244
N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175
S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v.
Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory and
testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex
parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v.
Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fme or imprison for contempt. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The
Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga.,
37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher,
C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488,2 L.R.A.

Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 3 of 13


Exhibit B v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 27 of 70 PageID 27

229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231.][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,
425, 426]

14. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any holding so
as to cause a free man to lose his court. [Magna Carta, Article 34].
15. On August 18th, 2015 an order from the above mentioned court ordered numerous defendants to
release claimant from their respective jurisdictions. All parties to the action were permitted 30
days to provide evidence to the court why such order was invalid.
16. Defendants were also ordered to pay damages to claimant. Claimant has not been paid any such
damages as of the date of this filing.

17. The State of Texas is a corporation operated by the the Texas state. "The government, by
becoming a corporator, lays down its sovereignty so far as respects the transactions of the
corporation, and exercises no power or privilege which is not derived from the charter. " Bank
of United States v. Planters' Bank ofGeorgia, 22 U.S. 9 Wheat. 904 904 (1824) The inferior
court is a subdivision of said corporation.

18. The defendants herein have conspired against claimant rights, deprived claimant of his rights, made false
statements in a court, and infringed on claimants right of free travel.

CHARGES
COUNT I- Contempt of Court 18 USC 401

19. Defendants herein did, in defiance of an order of a court of record in case number CV04614
decided in the Hamilton County District Court, a court of record, did take action against
claimant under color of law, imprisoning claimant.
20. A previous case to which all parties to the action made the knowledge of claimant nonconsent
abundantly clear.
21. CONGRESS DECLARES BIBLE "THE WORD OF GOD" Public Law 97-280, 96 stat
1211, Oct 4 1982 and Executive Order 6100 of Sept 22, 1990.
Exodus 20 15Thou shalt not steal. 16Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour.
17Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's house, ...
Luke 11:52 Woe unto you, lawyers! for ye have taken away the key of knowledge: ye entered

Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 4 of 13


ExhibitB v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 28 of 70 PageID 28

not in yourselves, and them that were entering in ye hindered.


Proverbs 28:1 The wicked flee when no man pursueth: but the righteous are bold as a lion.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and
light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter! 23Which justify the wicked for
reward, and take away the righteousness of the righteous from him!
Exodus 23:7Keep thee far from a false matter; and the innocent and righteous slay thou not: for
I will not justify the wicked.
Deuteronomy 25: llf there be a controversy between men, and they come unto judgment, that
the judges may judge them; then they shall justify the righteous, and condemn the wicked.
COUNT IT- PEIUVRY 18 USC 1621
22. Defendant Rowe executed an affidavit in which Rowe swore to a subordinate deputy clerk
known as Erin Craig that claimant "driver's license" had been "suspended or revoke". Claimant,
after learning of his free right to travel without a driver's license from numerous case cites,
decided at the end of his previous term to allow it to expire and chose not to renew the contract
with the State of Texas, a corporation.
23. Defendant Mills after hearing claimant's consent, scheduled a trial for August 1", 2016,
which required claimant to enter a plea Claimant entered no such plea, a requirement to obtain
claimant's consent to leave the common law and be held accountable to code. Claimant
objected to the code, and Mills enter a plea of "not guilty", a false statement that will be
presented to a jury.
24. TITLE 18 >PART I> CHAPTER 79 > 1621 Perjury generally Whoever- (1) having
taken an oath before a competent tribunal, officer, or person, in any case in which a law of the
United States authorizes an oath to be administered, that he will testify, declare, depose, or
certify truly, or that any written testimony, declaration, deposition, or certificate by him
subscribed, is true, wilfully and contrary to such oath states or subscribes any material matter
which he does not believe to be true; or (2) in any declaration, certificate, verification, or
statement under penalty of perjury as permitted under section 1746 of title 28, United States
Code, wilfully subscribes as true any material matter which he does not believe to be true; is
guilty of perjury and shall, except as otherwise expressly provided by law, be fined under this
title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. This section is applicable whether the
statement or subscription is made within or without the United States.
Notice of Felonies Townsend
Exhibit B v.
State of Texas et. aL
--
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 29 of 70 PageID 29

COUNT III- TREASON 18 USC 2381. 2382. 2383. 2384


25. Robert McGinnis, Jason Yarbrough, Chance Logan, Beccy Rowe, Randy Mills, Charles
Sparks et al, owing allegiance to the United States and the United States Constitution, did
wilfully and knowingly give aid and comfort to those et al defendants whose acts are subversive
to the United States and as such are destroying our children, our homes, our churches, our
schools, our business, our contracts, our money system, and our Government. Said acts defined
in the United States Constitution Article III, section 3, is punishable under USC Title 18,
sections 3, 4, 2381, 2382, 2383, 2384. The most dangerous enemy to any country is the enemy
that works within the government to overthrow said government. By ignoring the fact that
claimant is a people that must consent to defendants jurisdiction, defendants are in unison
attempting to overthrow the republican form of government of the state of Texas and The
United States of America.
26. TITLE 18 4. Misprision of felony: Whoever, having knowledge of the actual commission of
a felony cognizable by a court of the United States, conceals and does not as soon as possible
make known the same to some judge or other person in civil or military authority under the
United States, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than three years, or both.
27. TITLE 18 2381. Treason. Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against
them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or
elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five
years and fined under this title but not less than $1 0,000; and shall be incapable of holding any
office under the United States.
28. TITLE 18 2382. Misprision of treason. Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States and
having knowledge of the commission of any treason against them, conceals and does not, as
soon as may be, disclose and make known the same to the President or to some judge of the
United States, or to the governor or to some judge or justice of a particular State, is guilty of
misprision of treason and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than seven
years, or both.
29. TITLE 18 2383. Rebellion or insurrection. Whoever incites, sets on foot, assists, or engages
in any rebellion or insurrection against the authority of the United States or the laws thereof; or
gives aid or comfort thereto, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten
years, or both; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.
Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 6of13
Exhibit B v.
State of Texas et. al.
-
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 30 of 70 PageID 30

30. TITLE 18 2384. Seditious conspiracy If two or more persons in any State or Territory, or in
any place subject to the jurisdiction of the United States, conspire to overthrow, put down, or to
destroy by force the Government of the United States, or to levy war against them, or to oppose
by force the authority thereof, or by force to prevent, hinder, or delay the execution of any law
of the United States, or by force to seize, take, or possess any property of the United States
contrary to the authority thereof, they shall each be fined nnder this title or imprisoned not more
than twenty years, or both.

COUNT IV- CONSPIRACY AGAINST RIGHTS 18 USC 241


31. Robert McGinnis, Jason Yarbrough, Chance Logan, Beccy Rowe, Randy Mills, Charles
Sparks, et a!, having taken an oath to support and defend the United States and the United
States Constitution, did wilfully and knowingly violate said oath in an open court of Law by
violating the constitutional Rights of the people of Texas by not up holding his/her Bill of
Rights which is a felony.
32. TITLE 18 241. Conspiracy against rights. If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress,
threaten, or intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or
District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the
Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same; or If
two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the premises of another, with intent to
prevent or hinder his free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured-They
shall be fined nnder this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results
from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or
an attempt to kill, they shall be fmed under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for
life, or both, or may be sentenced to death.
COUNT V- DEPRIVATION OF RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF LAW 18 USC 241
33. Defendants deprived claimant of his natural rights in defiance of a court order that order
defendant not to interfere with claimant. Defendants Spark even went so far as to read claimant
his rights during a hearing to correct defendant Yarbrough's failure to do so. Defendant Rowe,
aided in the deprivation by submitting a false statement as did defendant Mills. All defendants
work in unison to deprive claimant of his free natural and constitutional rights.
Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 7 ofl3
ExhibitB v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 31 of 70 PageID 31

34. Most heinously, defendants used there positions in government under color of law to conduct
said deprivation of claimant's rights.
35. TITLE 18 242. Deprivation of rights under color of law. Whoever, under color of any law,
statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, wilfully subjects any person in any State, Territory,
Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or
immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different
punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his
color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title
or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts
committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or
threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fue, shall be fmed under this title or
imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated
sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be
fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be
sentenced to death.

COUNT VI- PEONAGE; Obstructing Enforcement

36. Robert McGinnis, Jason Yarbrough, Chance Logan, Beccy Rowe, Randy Mills, Charles
Sparks et al, or any other Judicial Officer I Administrative Officer, Attorney I Esquire, Law
Enforcement Officer or any other who hold a public office of trust having taken an oath to
support and defend the United States Constitution, and the statutes of the United States and of
this State and violate or over rule Congressional Enactment or any Judicial Procedure Manual
created by Congress or the America Bar Association as Court Procedure and the Rules of Court
or over rule any Higher Courts decisions to denial equal protection under 42 USC 1981 the J4lh
amendment with intent to deny fairness and court integrity by violation of 18 USC 1581
Peonage; obstructing enforcement or means of Obstruction of Justice of the Law and making
law from that position by violating 28 USC 454 & 455 and the Bill of Rights of the people by
not up holding his/her constitutional Rights which is a felony are guilty of.
Notice of Felonies Tow:.send Page 8 of 131
Exhibit B
State of Texas et. al.
------~----------------------~
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 32 of 70 PageID 32

37. Defendants in unison did work together to obstruct enforcement of the order of a court of
record.
38. TITLE 18 USC> PART I> CHAPTER 93 > 1918 Sec. 1918. Disloyalty and asserting the
right to strike against the Govermnent Whoever violates the provision of section 7311 of title 5
that an individual may not accept or hold a position in the Govermnent of the United States or
the government of the District of Columbia if he -
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of govermnent;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our
constitutional form of govermnent;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Govermnent of the
United States or the govermnent of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Govermnent of the United States or
of individuals employed by the govermnent of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts
the right to strike against the Govermnent of the United States or the govermnent of the District
of Columbia; shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year and a day, or
both, for any portion of the money or property which is requested or demanded.
(d) Exemption from disclosure.-Any information furnished pursuant to sub-paragraphs (A)
through (C) of subsection (a) shall be exempt from disclosure under section 552 of title 5.
(e) Exclusion.-This section does not apply to claims, records, or statements made under the
Internal. Revenue Code of 1986.
39. TITLE 5 7311. Loyalty and striking. An individual may not accept or hold a position in the
Govermnent of the United States or the govermnent of the District of Columbia ifhe-
(1) advocates the overthrow of our constitutional form of govermnent;
(2) is a member of an organization that he knows advocates the overthrow of our constitutional
form of govermnent;
(3) participates in a strike, or asserts the right to strike, against the Govermnent of the United
States or the govermnent of the District of Columbia; or
(4) is a member of an organization of employees of the Govermnent of the United States or of
individuals employed by the govermnent of the District of Columbia that he knows asserts the
right to strike against the Government of the United States or the govermnent of the District of
Columbia.
Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 9 of13
ExhibitB v.
State of Texas et. al.
L __ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __ L_ _ _ _ _ _ _ ___
-----
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 33 of 70 PageID 33

COUNT VII- CORRUPTION


40. Robert McGinnis, Jason Yarbrough, Chance Logan, Beccy Rowe, Randy Mills, Charles
Sparks et al, having taken an oath to support and defend the United States and the United
States Constitution, and the statutes of the United States and of this State did wilfully and
knowingly violate said oath by means of Obstruction of Justice of the Law by violating the
constitutional Rights of the people of Texas by not upholding the Bill of Rights which is a
felony.

ANTI-COURRUPTION ACT NO 6494

41. The term "public officials" means the persons falling under any of the following:
(a) The public officials under the State Public Officials Act and the Local Public Officials Act,
and other persons who are recognized by other Acts as public officials in terms of
qualifications, appointments, education and training, services, remunerations, status guarantee,
etc; and
(b)The heads of organizations related to the civil service provided for in subparagraph 1(d) and
the employees of such organizations.
42. The term "act of corruption" means the act falling under any of the following:
(a) The act of any public official's seeking gains for himself/herself or for any third party by
abusing his/her position or authority or violating Acts and subordinate statutes in connection
with his/her duties; and
(b) The act of causing damages to the property of any public agency in violation of Acts and
subordinate statutes, in the process of executing the budget of the relevant public agency,
acquiring, managing, or disposing ofthe property of the relevant public agency, or entering into
and executing a contract to which the relevant public agency is a party.
43. TITLE 18 >PART I> CHAPTER 63 > 1346. Definition of"scheme or artifice to defraud"
For the purposes of this chapter, the term "scheme or artifice to defraud" includes a scheme or
artifice to deprive another ofthe intangible right of honest services.
44. US Attorneys > USAM >Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual1721
45. 1721Protection of Government Processes-Obstruction of Justice-Scope of 18 U.S.C.
1503- Section 1503 ofTitle 18, United States Code, as amended by the Victim and Witness
Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 10 of 13
Exhibit B v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 34 of 70 PageID 34

Protection Act of 1982, forbids tampering with or retaliating against any grand or petit juror, or
any officer in or of any court of the United States by threats or force or by "endeavors to
influence, intimidate, or impede." Section 1503 also contains an omnibus clause prohibiting the
obstruction of"the due administration of justice." By virtue of the omnibus clause, many courts
have held that it is possible to obstruct justice under section 1503 by means similar to, but
different from, those specifically enumerated in the first part of the provision. United States v.
Saget, 991 F.2d 702, 713 (11th Cir.), cert. denied, 510 U.S. 950 (1993); United States v. Neal,
951 F.2d 630, 632 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Rasheed, 663 F.2d 843, 850-52 (9th Cir.
1981), cert. denied, sub. nom. Phillips v. United States, 454 U.S. 1157 (1982). A party may be
prosecuted under section 1503 for endeavoring to obstruct justice, United States v. Neal, supra;
United States v. Williams, 874 F.2d 968, 976 (5th Cir. 1989); it is no defense that such
obstruction was unsuccessful, United States v. Edwards, 36 F.3d 639, 645 (7th Cir. 1994);
United States v. Neal, supra; or that it was impossible to accomplish, United States v. Bucey,
876 F.2d 1297, (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 493 U.S. 1004 (1989); United States v. Brimberry, 744
F.2d 580 (7th Cir. 1984), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1039 (1987).
46. The term "officer in or of any court of the United States" includes: United States District
Judges, United States v. Jones, 663 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1981) (by implication); United States v.
Glickman, 604 F.2d 625 (9th Cir. 1979) (by implication), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080 (1980);
United States v. Fasolino, 586 F.2d 939 (2d Cir. 1978) (per curiam) (by implication); United
States v. Margoles, 294 F.2d 371, 373 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 368 U.S. 930 (1961);
47. United States Attorneys, Jones, supra; United States v. Polakoff, 112 F.2d 888, 890 (2d Cir.),
cert. denied, 311 U.S. 653 (1940);
48. United States Bankruptcy Judges, United States v. Fulbright, 69 F.3d 1468 (9th Cir. 1995) (by
implication);
49. Supreme Court Justices, United States Courts of Appeals Judges, United States Magistrate
Judges, clerks of Federal courts, law clerks to Federal judges, Federal court staff attorneys,
Federal court reporters, Federal prosecutors and defense counsel.

50. Because 18 U.S.C. 1503 applies to civil, as well as criminal judicial proceedings, Roberts v.
United States, 239 F.2d 467, 470 (9th Cir. 1956); Sneed v. United States, 298 F. 911, 912 (5th
Cir.), cert. denied, 265 U.S. 590 (1924); see Nye v. United States, 137 F.2d 73 (4th Cir.) (by

Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 11 of13


Exhibit B v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 35 of 70 PageID 35

implication), cert. denied, 320 U.S. 755 (1943), private attorneys are, arguably, also covered by
the statute.

51. A venireman is a "petit juror" within the meaning of section 1503. United States v. Jackson, 607
F.2d 1219, 1222 (8th Cir. 1979), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 1080 (1980); see United States v.
Osborn, 415 F.2d 1021, 1024 (6th Cir. 1969) (en bane), cert. denied, 396 U.S. 1015 (1970).
52. The majority of United States Courts of Appeals have held that 18 U.S.C. 1503 may be used
to charge a defendant with witness tampering. United States v. Moody, 977 F.2d 1420 (lith Cir.
1992), cert. denied, 507 U.S. 944 (1993); United States v. Kenny, 973 F.2d 339 (4th Cir. 1992);
United States v. Branch, 850 F.2d 1080 (5th Cir. 1988), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 1018 (1989);
United States v. Risken, 788 F.2d 1361 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 923 (1986); United
States v. Rovetuso, 768 F.2d 809 (7th Cir. 1985), cert. denied, 474 U.S. 1076 (1986); United
States v. Lester, 749 F.2d 1288 (9th Cir. 1984). But see United States v. Masterpol, 940 F.2d 760
(2d Cir. 1991) (construing the 1988 amendment to section 1512 as evidence of Congress's intent
that witnesses were removed entirely from section 1503).
53. US Attorneys> USAM >Title 9 > Criminal Resource Manual1724
54. 1724 Protection of Government Processes-Omnibus Clause-- 18 U.S.C. 1503
55. The omnibus clause of section 1503 "makes an offense of any proscribed endeavor, without
regard to the technicalities of the law or to the law of impossibility." United States v. Neal, 951
F.2d 630, 632 (5th Cir. 1992); United States v. Williams, 874 F.2d 968 (5th Cir. 1989), citing
Osborn v. United States, 385 U.S. 323 (1966). The clause was "intended to cover all endeavors
to obstruct justice" and as such "was drafted with an eye to the variety of corrupt methods by
which the proper administration of justice may be impeded or thwarted, a variety limited only
by the imagination of the criminally inclined." United States v. Neal, 951 F.2d at 632.The
principal limitation to the scope of the omnibus clause is the pending judicial proceeding
requirement. Courts have given an equally broad reading to the nearly identical, but less
frequently litigated, omnibus clause of 18 U.S.C. 1505. See, e.g., United States v. Alo, 439
F.2d 751,753-54 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 404 U.S. 850 (1971).

Notice ofF elonies Townsend Page 12 of 13


Exhibit B v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 36 of 70 PageID 36

DEMAND FOR ARREST

56. Pursuant to the Laws of the United States, We the People DEMAND the arrest of the above
named felons for the seven (7) felonies enumerated herein.
57. Pursuant to the statutes herein, in particular the Laws of the United States in general, We the
People DEMAND that you pursue and prosecute ALL ET AL offenders that have violated their
Oaths and Oaths of Office and the Laws of the United States.
WITNESS THE SEAL OF THE COURT, this 291h day of July, 2016.

The Court

~/Zo~ ?2_
~ Randall Todd Townsend
Attornitus Privatus

Notice of Felonies Townsend Page 13 of 13


ExhibitB v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 37 of 70 PageID 37

HAMILTON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT

RANDALL TODD TOWNSEND


v. DOCKET# CYOt/IR/..5
STATE OF TEXAS FILE FOR RECORD
HAMILTON COUNTY, TEXAS
HAMILTON COUNTY
CITY OF HAMILTON MAY 2 8 2015
JUSTIN CARAWAY LEOMA LARANCE
CLERK 220 DiSTRiCT COURT
KENNETH LOVELL
GREGG BEWLEY CLAIM FOR TRESPASS and
JAILER JOHN DOE TRESPASS ON THE CASE
JAILER JANE DOE
CHARLIE HALL VERIFIED
JUSTIN SLONE
ROBERT MCGINNIS
JAMES LIVELY

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTIONS- TRESPASS

PARTIES

1. Comes now, Randall Todd Townsend, ("Townsend") a people of Texas, hereinafter

plaintiff, in this court of record and complains of each of the following: State of Texas, a

corporation; Hamilton County, a subdivision of the corporation; City of Hamilton, a

corporation; James Lively ("Lively"); Justin Caraway, ("Caraway") Kenneth Lovell,

("Lovell"); Gregg Bewley, ("Bewley"); Jailer John Doe; Jailer Jane Doe; Charlie Hall,

IAction for Trespass Randall Townsend Page 1 of 12


v.
IL County of Hamilton et. al.
----------~---------------~--------------------~-------~
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 38 of 70 PageID 38

("Hall"); Justin Slone ("Slone"); Robert McGinns, ("McGinnis"); James Lively,

("Lively") hereinafter defendants and co-conspirators who are each summoned to

answer said action in a plea of trespass and trespass on the case to wit:

INTRODUCTION

2. Each co-conspirator exceeded his jurisdiction and participated in unlawful, vindictive

prosecution of plaintiff under color of law.

3. Each co-conspirator exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law by either directly, or

through an agent, or in concert with another, did cause plaintiff to be unlawfully and

forcefully carried away and imprisoned' against his will, without jurisdiction or good

cause.

4. From the moment he was taken away, plaintiff Townsend, under color of law, has been

kept in actual or constructive imprisonment.

5. As documented herein, defendants worked in unison to hinder the free right of

locomotion of claimant Townsend under color of law on more than one occasion as

vindication for plaintiff Townsend's reporting2 of Justin's Caraway's unlawful act of

cuffing plaintiffTownsend on 10/15/2014 although no crime had been committed.

SPECIFICS

6. At all times mentioned in this action, each co-defendant is the agent of the other, and in
!Imprison: To confine a person or restrain his liberty in any way. Black's Law Dictionary, 51tl. Edition
Imprisonment: .. .it may be in a locality used only for the specific occasion; or it may take place without the actual application of any physical agendes of
restraint (such as locks or bars), as by verbal compulsion and the display of available force. Black's Law Dictionary, SthEditton

2 See Exhibit B Formal complaint.

fAction for Tresp~~ Randall Townsend Page2ofl21


I I
v. I
L _____ _ Coooty of Hamilton et. al.
----
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 39 of 70 PageID 39

doing the act alleged in this action, each is acting in course and scope of said agency.

The following paragraphs describe what the co-conspirators, under color of law, either

acted or failed to act as obligated.

7. Each defendant exceeded his jurisdiction under color of law. Each defendant acted in

concert with the remaining defendants to effect the unlawful loss of liberty of plaintiff

Townsend.

8. Each defendant acted in such a way, or failed to act in such a way, that plaintiff has been

deprived of his liberty, reputation, and right of free locomotion during his imprisonment.

9. In November of 2013 plaintiff Townsend did not renew his contract with the State of

Texas, a corporation, as he does not operate a "motor vehicle"'.

l 0. Plaintiff Townsend is not a "driver" who operates a "motor vehicle".

11. On October 15'h, 2014 plaintiff Townsend complained to the local football coach

regarding loud music blaring throughout the neighborhood.

12. Plaintiff Townsend went several times to the football field to complain to the coach

about the loud music blaring through the neighborhood.

13. Plaintiff Townsend was accompanied by his wife, Christie L. Townsend, on his final trip

to the football field to complain to the head coach, Mike Reed ("coach Reed").

14. Plaintiff Townsend was approach by the coach after plaintiff Townsend unplugged the

music that was disturbing the peace throughout the neighborhood.

3 18 U.S. Code 31 -Definitions (a)(6) Motor vehicle.- The tenn "motor vehicle" means every description ofcaniage
or other contrivance propelled or drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the higbways in tbe
transportation of passengers, passengers and property, or property or cargo.

IAction for Trespass I Randall Townsend Page 3 of 12l


v.
l _j County of Hamilton et. aL i
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 40 of 70 PageID 40

15. Plaintiff Townsend and Mrs. Townsend had made it into the filed house with coach

Reed. After plaintiff Townsend made his point, he vacated the field house leaving his

wife, Christie Townsend, to discuss her issues with coach Reed.

16. The local police were called by an unknown caller and a Hamilton city police officer

arrived and asked plaintiff Townsend to stand behind his car and wait for him.

17. Seconds later, defendant Caraway arrived and demanded to see plaintiff Townsend's

identification although plaintiff Townsend had not been arrested4

18. Plaintiff Townsend informed defendant Caraway that he was not required to show his

identification as no crime had been committed nor was plaintiff Townsend suspected of

committing a crime.

19. Defendant Caraway then, in a fit of rage, yelled at plaintiff Townsend proclaiming, "You

have to show me your id. It's the law." He then told plaintiff Townsend that he was

under arrest, "for not providing an Id."

20. While plaintiff Townsend was explaining to defendant Caraway that defendant Caraway

4. Texas Penal Code 38.02

(a) A person commits an offense if he intentionally refuses to give his name, residence address, or date of birth to a peace
officer who has lawfully arrested the person and requested the information.

(b) A person commits an offense if he intentionally gives a false or fictitious name, residence address, or date of birth to a
peace officer who has:

(I) lawfully arrested the person;

(2) lawfully detained the person; or

(3) requested the information from a person that the peace officer has good cause to believe is a witness to a
criminal offense.

Randall Townsend
v.
County of Hamilton et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 41 of 70 PageID 41

was infringing on his rights, and violating Texas penal code', defendant Caraway

roughly place hand cuffs on plaintiff Townsend's wrists so tight his left hand started

going numb from the lack of blood circulation.

21. Plaintiff Townsend later filed a complaint6 against defendant Caraway who was later

reprimanded by defendant Lovell.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS ON THE CASE

22. Paragraphs 1-21 are included as though stated fully herein.

23. Since the complaint had been filed, plaintiff Townsend's has been subjected to

harassment and intimidation from the defendants who commonly drive by his home up

to ten times per day.

24. On December 12'\ 2014 plaintiff Townsend was traveling to numerous places of

business where children were kept to donate toys for Christmas.

25. One of the places of business that he stopped to make such a donation was a day care

facility operated by Charlie Hall.

26. Defendant Hall informed plaintiff Townsend that she did not want anything from him

and asked him to leave, which he did immediately.

27. After plaintiff Townsend had stopped by two other facilities and made a donation,

defendant Slone, who had been waiting for plaintiff Townsend, followed plaintiff

Townsend for six blocks past his domicile to the First Baptist Church on South Bell St.,

5 Texas Penal Code 38.02


6 Exhibit B l-B2

[Action-fo_r_T-re--spas-_]------------Ra-;d_a_ll-~w~-sen_d______________]~age S~fj
l

L _ ___ County of Hamilton et. al.


--------------
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 42 of 70 PageID 42

Hamilton TX.

28. While at the First Baptist Church, co-conspirator Slone wrote a falsified "Notice of

Criminal Trespass"' signing his name to it.

29. The "Notice of Criminal Trespass", hereinafter "Notice", states in all capital letters,

"YOU ARE HEREBY NOTIFffiD THAT YOU ARE TRESPASSING. YOU ARE

THEREFORE ORDERED TO LEAVE THE PROPERTY AND ORDERED NOT TO

RETURN TO THE PROPERTY."

30. The Notice states the location of the warning occurred at 541 N. Rice, Hamilton TX

when, in fact, it occurred on S. Bell, Hamilton TX 76531, the public street on which the

plaintiff is domiciled.

31. The Notice was given at on the street at the First Baptist Church, Hamilton, Tx.

32. The Notice was signed by co-conspirator Hall contrary to Texas Penal Code 30.05."

33. Plaintiff Townsend visited co-conspirator McGinnis to report the incorrect use of the

Notice, and defendant McGinnis stated falsely that the Notice was used per Texas code 9

although plaintiff did not remain on co-conspirator Hall's property after she asked

plaintiff Townsend to leave, a requirement of Texas Penal Code 30.05 (a)(2).

7 ExhibitA
8 Texas Penal Code 30.05
(a) A person commits an offense if he enters or remains on or in property, including an aircraft or other vehicle, of another
without effective consent or he enters or remains in a building of another without effective consent and he:
(I) had notice that the entry was forbidden; or
(2) received notice to depart but failed to do so.
(b) For purposes of this section:
(I) "Entry" means the intrusion of the entire body.
(2) ''Notice" means:
(A) oral or written communication by the owner or someone with apparent authority to act for the owner;

---------------=r:J
9 Exhibit D - Transcript of conversation with Chief of Police Robert McGinnis.

Action for Trespass 1 Randall Townsend Page 6 of 12


v.
-------"'--------__tJunt)'_of Hamilton et. al. _ _ __
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 43 of 70 PageID 43

34. Defendant McGinnis stated falsely, "What it's saying is, that she doesn't want you there,

so it's putting you on notice that she doesn't want you there." 10

TIDJID CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS

35. Paragraphs 1-33 are included as though stated fully herein.

36. Plaintiff Townsend and his family have undergone months of harassment from

defendants who commonly drive by plaintiffs domicile up to ten times per day.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION -TRESPASS

37. Paragraphs 1-35 are included as though stated fully herein.

38. On May sh, 2015, plaintiffTownsend was traveling on Highway 281 south of Hamilton,

Texas on his way to Lampasas, Texas on his way to a medical appointment.

39. While driving through a construction zone, plaintiff Townsend exited the travel lane of

Highway 281 and traded places with his wife and sat in the passenger seat.

40. After plaintiff Townsend passed defendants Bewley and Lovell, defendants Bewley and

Lovell followed plaintiff Townsend and passed him and turned around rapidly nearly

striking plaintiff Townsend's conveyance and blocking his path.

41. Defendant Bewley quickly approached plaintiff Townsend's door, and without invitation

or consent, opened it grabbing plaintiff Townsend's arm and forcing plaintiff Townsend

out of his conveyance.

42. Defendant Bewley then forced plaintiff Townsend to place his hands on his conveyance

as though he had committed a crime.

I0 Exhibit D - Page 2 Line 13.

Randall Townsend
v.
County of Hamilton et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 44 of 70 PageID 44

43. Defendant Bewley then imprisoned plaintiff Townsend.

44. Defendant Lovell then aided in the imprisonment by transporting plaintiff Townsend to

the Hamilton County Jail where he was kept in captivity though no injury had been

alleged by any other people.

45. Defendant Bewley wrote a citation" numbered 021108 exceeding his jurisdiction

against a people of Texas.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS

46. Paragraphs 1-44 are included as though stated fully herein.

47. After defendant Lovell transported plaintiff Townsend to the Hamilton County Jail,

plaintiff Townsend was "booked" as though he had committed a crime 12

48. Counter defendants Jailer John Doe and Jailer Jane Doe kept counter plaintiff Townsend

in captivity while forcing him to provide finger prints against his will.

49. Defendant Jailer Jane Doe caused an intentional interruption in the power under the

guise of and "exercise" to further punish plaintiff Townsend causing him to have to start

over on the finger printing to further extend his imprisonment.

50. Plaintiff Townsend was then taken into a confinement cell with defendant Jailer John

Doe who ordered him to remove his clothing causing plaintiff Townsend mental anguish

and embarrassment.

51. Defendant Jailer John Doe then, under color of law, forced plaintiff Townsend to expose

11 Exhibit C I & C2
12 "For a crime to exist there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one
because of his exercise of his constitutional rights." Sherar v. Cullen, 486 F. 945

Adioo fm T,;;p;;;, i --- Randall Townsend


v.
County of Hamilton et. al.
----
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 45 of 70 PageID 45

his most private parts of his body.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION- TRESPASS ON THE CASE

52. Paragraphs 1-50 are included as though fully stated herein.

53. Plaintiff Townsend has suffered damage to his reputation as a result of the unlawful

actions of defendants.

54. Plaintiff Townsend is now viewed by many as a criminal due to the actions of the co-

conspirators, although no injury has been alleged by any other people.

LAW OF THE CASE

55. Exhibit E is incorporated as though fully stated herein.

REOUEST FOR R,ELIEF

56. For that cause of action therefore plaintiff brings his suit.

57. WHEREFORE, plaintiff requests relief and judgment against defendants as follows:

58. WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as

follows:

59. For FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION $2,000;

60. For SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION $50 per day from the date of issue until such time

as the Notice of Criminal Trespass has been ruled unjust and contrary to Texas Penal

Code 30.05;

61. For THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION $100 per day from the date of the filing of the

complaint by plaintiff until the judgment has been ordered in this court;

62. For FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION $3,000;

I
Action for Trespass

L ________________ _
--
- - - -------
Randall Townsend
v.
County of Hamilton et. al.
----- -
1'"" 9 ofl2
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 46 of 70 PageID 46

63. For FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION $5,000;

64. For SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION $20 per day since the trespass committed in the

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION;

65. That the court enter a declaratory judgment ordering the State of Texas, a corporation, to

update its records removing plaintiff Townsend from its jurisdiction;

66. That the court enter a declaratory judgment ordering the Hamilton County to update its

records removing plaintiff Townsend from its jurisdiction;

67. That the court enter a declaratory judgment ordering the City of Hamilton, a

corporation, to update its records removing plaintiff Townsend from its jurisdiction;

68. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants have acted contrary to

constitutional right, power or privilege;

69. That the court enter a declaratory judgment that defendants actions were in excess of

statutory jurisdiction, authority and short of statutory right;

70. That the court permanently enjoin defendants from interfering with plaintiffs lawful

right of free travel;

71. That the court enter a judgment dismissing the citation numbered 021108 brought

before the inferior court not of record;

72. That the court grant plaintiff such other and further relief as the court deems proper;

73. For interest as allowed by law;

74. For costs of suit;

75. I declare under penalty of peljury that the foregoing facts are true and correct to the best

Randall :,ownsend = = r a g e 10 ofl:

Connty of Hamilton et. a!.


----------- ----
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 47 of 70 PageID 47

of my lmowledge.

\ May J:l, 2015, Hamilton County, Texas.

Randall Todd Townsend

State of Texas Hamilton County


Service of Process 100 West Main St.
Secretary of State Hamilton, Texas 76531
James E. Rudder Building
1019 Brazos, Room I 05
Austin, Texas 78701

City of Hamilton Kenneth Lovell


200 East Main St. 1108 S Rice St.
Hamilton, Texas 76531 Hamilton, TX 76531

Greg Bewley Justin Caraway


ll 08 S Rice St. 1108 S Rice St.
Hamilton, TX 76531 Hamilton, TX 76531

Robert MeGmnis Charlie HaD


204 East Main St. 541 N. Rice
Hamilton, TX 76531 Hamilton, TX 7653 l

Justin Slone Jailer John Doe


204 East Main St. 1108 S Rice St.
Hamilton, TX 76531 Hamilton, TX 76531

r - ................................ -:r-------------- ------r---9


:Action for Trespass ! Randall Townsend 1 Page II of 12
_j
.

: Ii v..
i i County of Hamilton et. al.
:...................................................L..........___________ - - - - - - - - - - - - - - _____ _j
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 48 of 70 PageID 48

Jailer Jane Doe


ll 08 S Rice St.
Hamilton, TX 76531

Randall Townsend
v.
l....,,;.m:
County of Hamilton et. al.
--- -----'
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 49 of 70 PageID 49

Dncke; # ________ _
In the Name and By The AUthority of 'lle
STATE OF TEXAS,COUNTY OF HAMllT(,:-J
THf: UNDERSIGNED, BEING 'CULY SWORN, UPQf\,di$/1-~CJ.. I.)ATf: DEP~SES ANC SAYS:
A.W..
./ __ DAYOI:;f~,.:-c>'-----~---- ..Jzoft::. _ __(:Z~C-~ _ _ _ _:P:!Vr.--
J .,-/

ONTHE_
NAME_:. I t> _.,,; ~ ~_;-: <>1{j(
----:-:':>-.--,;-:-----n~--- ----------y;;rtuDr----

.:.~~~~:UD::~::~S ){~' ' );-!;;:~.:-=:ix . ---=-=-_/(0 ;;_L:::,. _~~-


IJIJCRK r'40NE _ _ _ _

--~-"--"---
:::..:":;'.:li::H
aa ,._ ---
R~ c 0 o DID UNLAWFUll-Y (OP~R:i..Ttj
-c;m-. ..
ST._-~ __ - - - - -

::.-' -r:;!.:.:_;~---::-- ":~ . .;.-:.,- . . ; .,._.,._,-._~.,1-:_//;,;


iN ;;q::cll"l',-;,;~:.tU:--.,'!,H~i\,~"lllbNf.OII~nY, .!:' .~
f~.:~_,,r..~:;_,Jfh'' .:1r':f'' t..N[! r.- ~.EC0!'.1M1""' 1h':'O -
-,..,-----
1 0 Spe<:<~Jlo_____ m.p.h in a_ . _ _m.p.:\. ~-.:r.~
'
MttC SR C"
. Insp. Sticrter__ _ _ __ _ _ _ 0: .\lur!! ~v rna!nt;;,. Fina:.
l
- ro ~XJ:.ired lviV P.esr:u~:~i!ity RrJa Te:.t
1
, C" Fypir"'d :.:--:erose Plate _____ r _____ r:~ Qi:.reg_atrle 1 $to1-- Sign D y,, iJ II,!.
j :3'C5;p\r Violation]
4

' \. _ _:, {.A) (., I


j t:; !J- Drlv.t: !:ens Date----
'1 --- _ _ ,___,_._ ---------------------------------- -----

sae: ~e:t n_ c.~i~ ~r Q -:hild Sa~e. : ~-' ;-~ Jiol. A child u:1der ? yeats ole'; less ~han :;' ::>'.
''i.;!.,tio.,<: W ~ti.;)t P.-.~~.::-ngtr 0 A c.-:;:..-:::,-;'7: r. ;,.,, i ~..: ": 0 .,rt!o;m 17
- ---- -------~--r- - ---,-- ---- ---- ------
1. ;..::c.m~T _ ..~~AD ::::.vyF:- l . :1-it~~=FlC J , mr.~_;;:JQ.!JI.OF.Tk-'/.EL
-~~---::=~~~ --~J[,'":u~zrp,v i /~;:,.~) ______L::.'-~-ll:;;. ( _____ - -
r,,, urcl2. si .!\ecl fu he;-~
1tes t:.at he/solc nas just :nd_ P"Sonable d"es be g~our{2~?beli<!!ve, ~nr
that :<,- !lev~, tt~P.
:,:,:;or- r:;:m(:.. ..:'"lvve ccmn'itted th~ o~cn~: ner.-.:n ~et "rth, com~or; _;)a'w dnd a~;?ir,s~ t.'"le peace ~.-'U dig;-,jt-J of f:
~.e ~ '~"";. ..--- !.,.....-/"-~~-~.~:.::-
il-!IS_:J _DAY C r...Y - ' ;n ,/
..__ __ - - - Offu:"<il"5"~n*Me - - - - o<
~

c:;tiRT APF'E.'\RANCE: Dt.." JF


'00 East"''" Stceet, Hmlltoo, '"" 7531 ~~J:'7 ::~-2~ ;-~~',: ~/,~ ~d :} --
VI'.,NING: Failure to appear n court 01 ioi!ure tc sat! t ju;;l;;.. ent 01Ueriflg the payment of a fine ancl cost m&{ ~
r q 'tin Ue'lial c~your drivers license f"'ne~ov>'ll; rwuan "lfl,.. ~7''JP.003.: hereby promise tt> appear lr. said coPrr ~
t:,, t!m"! ant! i)lace riesignated in thi~ notice;' :,':1/or tisff til'! po'fln"'nt nf the fine anr: co~ts cft.fli.r cn--.~ic,,_
I :;,-r' _.~ I.

Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16


1EXAS DEPARTMENT
Page 50 OF Pl,[!3LIC
of 70 SAFETY50
PageID
fai!ure to comply with your written pn~rr1ise to appear in court as made on th;s
citation will constitute a separate offense with which you may be chat'lled an~
result in warrants being issued for your arrest. Failure to appear in court or
failure to satisfy a judgment ordering the payment of a fine and cost may result
in denial of your drivers license renewal; pursuant to TRC 708.003.

You may be able to require that this charge be dismissed by successfully


completing a driving safety course Or motorcycle operator training course. You
will lose that right if, on or before your Jppearante date, you do not provide the
court with notice of your request to tak= the course.

POTENTIAL SURCHARGE
"A conviction of an offens~: under a tnffic law of this
State or political subdivision of this State may result in
the assessment on your driver's license of a surcharge
under the Driver Responsibility Program!'

'';\ seCond or _:~.i~""~sequent con ict!on of <!t""i offense :.md.ei the


Texas Mo.or Ve: .ide Safety ; e~pordbilitv Act Ni!i result in
the suspension of your driv r's license and motor vehicle
registration unless you file an <I maintain evidence of financial
responsibility with the Depar .ment of Public Safety for two
years from the d'lte of convici>Jn. The department may waive
the requirement to file evide ,ce of financial responsibllity if
you file satisfactory evidence. .t~~ith the department showing
that at the time th!s citati<.' was issued, the vehide was
covered by a rr;otor vehide i;bi!ity insurance policy or that
you were otherwise exempt fn,m the requirements to provide
evidence of financial responsit ility."

If you are convicted of a misdemeanr offense involving violence where you


ai e/were a spouse, intimate partner parent, or guardian of the victim or
are/were involved in another, similar elationship with. the vit;tim, it may be
1,miawful for you to possess or purchas; a firearm, including a handgun or long
t1LU:, or ammunition, pursuant to fer' ral !aw, 18 U.S.C. section 922{g}(9} or
~ec.ticm 46.04{b}, Texas Penal Code. If' :::u ;1ave questions, whether these laW!;
.n~.~'2 it iiler:;al for you to pos,;es:. or p: '(hase a firearm, ;ou should .,_c:-l.:S~:iJ; c-1-;
a~ot .1ey.

'
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 51 of 70 PageID 51

CAUSE NUMBER: CPD2160-3101-0

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT


vs CITY OF HAMILTON
RANDALL TODD TOWNSEND HAMILTON COUNTY, TEXAS

NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the above mentioned and styled cause is
scheduled for JURY SELECTION and JURY TRIAL, in the City of Hamilton Municipal
Court at the City of Hamilton Municipal Court, City Hall, 200 East Main Street,
Hamilton, Texas, the 1'1 day of August, 2016, at 1:30 p.m.

*FAILURE TO APPEAR may result in a charge of"Failure to Appear" being


filed and warrants being issued for your arrest. You may also be required to pay the costs
of impaneling the jury.

This notice mailed on July 13, 2016.

Court Clerk

August 1, 2016 1:30 p.m.


City of Hamilton Municipal Court
200 East Main Street
Hamilton, TX 76531
254-386-8116 ext 3

*Notice: To request a continuance to reset the above court date, a written Motion for
Continuance stating the reason (good cause) for the continuance must be filed with this
Court 72 hours prior to the time and date of above court date. Failure to comply with
this notice requirement may result in your motion for continuance being denied.
Filing a continuance is not an automatic reset. All requests must be approved by the
Judge. Phone calls will not reset your court date.

enc/complaint
ExtfrtJt~"'
CaseE.z_- (_t-~tt-I( Document
4:16-cv-00711-A /f;:;::;t:?,AZt/;1
1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 52 of 70 PageID 52

CAUSE NUMBER: CPD2160-3101-0

STATE OF TEXAS IN THE MUNICIPAL COURT

vs CITY OF HAMILTON
RANDALL TODD TOWNSEND HAMILTON COUNTY, TEXAS

In the Name and by the Authority of the State of Texas:

I, the undersigned affiant, do solemnly swear that I have good reason and do believe that
RANDALL TODD TOWNSEND, hereinafter called the Defendant, on or about 02/04/2016,
and before the making and filing ofthis complaint, while within the territorial limits of the City
of Hamilton, and the State of Texas, at or near MAIN AND RAILROAD, did unlawfully operate
a motor vehicle on a public highway after hisJher driver's license was canceled and another was
not reissued, during a period that the Defendant's driver's license was suspended or revoked
under any law of the State of Texas that prohibited the Defendant from obtaining a driver's
license in violation of Sections 521.457(a) and (e) of the Transportation Code; after renewal of
the Defendant's driver's license has been denied under any law of the State of Texas, if the
Defendant does not have a driver's license subsequently issued under Chapter 521,
Transportation Code.

Against the peace and dignity of the State.

Affiant Court Clerk

cf
. 0
Sworn antsubscri~dbefore me by Beccy Rowe a credible person, this =; -
,) day of
C1'l!t.u (l{JL/ , 20 I 0 .
I

Hamilton County, Texas


- F 4:16-cv-00711-A
fx-Ht-6 ; I Case \,J {L I 1 Gf ;t.jl.() IL
Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 53 of 70 PageID 53

HAMILTON COUNTY DISTRICT COURT

RANDALLTODDTOWNSEND
v.
C:CD '};
,_,._ . . !,
STATE OF TEXAS CAUSE# CV04615
HAMILTON COUNTY
CITY OF HAMILTON
JUSTIN CARAWAY
KENNETH LOVELL WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORUM NOBIS

GREGG BEWLEY RESIDANT RE ORDER OF DISMISSAL,


JOHN RATHBURN
BRANDI GRAHAM ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE
CHARLIE HALL
JUSTIN SLONE
ROBERT MCGINNIS
JAMES LIVELY

I. THE COURT COMES NOW, TO review the facts, record, and process resulting in the

order entitled FINAL JUDGMENT and filed September 2"d, 20!5.

SUMMARY

2. On the s day of August, 2015 this court issued and order denying defendants motion to

dismiss plaintiff's causes of action against them.

3. The order also ordered that the hearing requested by defendants be removed from the

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 1 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 54 of 70 PageID 54

schedule and ordered the court administrator and magistrate make no further attempts at

usurping the authority of this court.

4. That order included an order to show just cause why said order was invalid.

5. None of the parties to the actions brought before this court have shown just cause why

the order was not valid.

6. The court then issued a fmal judgment on August 18'\ 2015 for the causes of action

against the defendants in favor of the plaintiff.

7. Contrary to the requirements of a court of record, the magistrate, Phil Robertson,

hereinafter "Robertson", assumed the mantel of a tribunal and proceeded independently.

The purpose of this writ is to restore the orderly decorum of the court and to correct the

defective impromptu process and usurpation oflegislative and court powers taken by the

magistrate without leave of court.

8. This court has great admiration for the magistrates. Their training, experience and

wisdom are of great value in guiding this court toward a just resolution of issues.

9. But, we are mindful of the wisdom of Thomas Jefferson when he said, "We all know

that permanent judges acquire and esprit de corps; that, being known, they are liable to

be tempted by bribery; that they are misled by favor, by relationship, by a spirit of party,

by a devotion to the executive or legislative; that it is better to leave a cause to the

decision of cross and pile' than to that of a judge biased to one side."2

10. It is, in part, with that inspiration that this court is established as a court ofrecord. 3
1 Cross and pile: a coin flip.
2 Thomas Jefferson to Abbe Amoux, 1789. Papers, 15:283
3 There shall be established in each county in this State a CoiDlty Court, which shall be a court of record; - Texas
Constitution, Article 5 Section 15

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 2 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 55 of 70 PageID 55

DETAIL

11. The following is organized into three sections:

I. Judicial cognizance

II. Findings of facts, Discussion and Conclusion of Law

III. Impeachment and Writ

I. Judicial Cognizance

12. This court takes judicial cognizance of and decrees the following:

13. JUDICIAL COGNIZANCE: Judicial notice, or knowledge upon which a judge is

bound to act without having it proved in evidence. [Black's Law Dictionary, sot. Edition,
page 760.]

14. The people of Texas do not waive their sovereignty to the agencies that serve them being

the sovereigns who ordained and established the Constitution for the Texas state. 4

15. Two distinguishing and critical characteristics of a court of record are; A judicial

tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the

magistrate designated generally to hold it, AND Proceeding according to the course of

common law.

16. On the 2nd day of September, 2015, the magistrate, without leave of court, issued an

order of dismissal of counterclaimant Townsend's action.

17. Magistrate Robertson has not filed an action against counterclaimant Townsend.

18. Sec. 2. INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF

4 Humbly invoking the blessings of Almighty God, the people of the State ofTexas, do ordain and establish this
Constitution. -Texas Constitution Preamble

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 3 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 56 of 70 PageID 56

GOVERNMENT. All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments

are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit. The faith of the people of

Texas stands pledged to the, preservation of a republican form of government, and,

subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform

or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient. 5

19....at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the

sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects...with none to govern

but themselves ..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall419, 454, I LEd 440, 455

@DALL (1793) pp471-472.]

20. The very meaning of 'sovereignty' is that the decree of the sovereign makes law.

(American Banana Co. v. United Fruit Co., 29 S.Ct. 511, 513, 213 U.S. 347, 53 L.Ed.

826, 19 Ann.Cas. 1047.]

21. The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are entitled to all the

rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4

Wend. 9 (N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 lOC Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3,

228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.)

22. A consequence of this prerogative is the legal ubiquity of the king. His majesty in the

eye of the law is always present in all his courts, though he cannot personally distribute

justice. (Fortesc.c.8. 2Inst.l86) His judges are the mirror by which the king's image is

reflected. 1 Blackstone's Commentaries, 270, Chapter 7, Section 379.

23. The state cannot diminish rights of the people. [Hertado v. California, 100 US 516.]

5 Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 2.

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 4of15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 57 of 70 PageID 57

24. The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated

under the name of local practice. [Davis v. Wechsler, 263 US 22, 24. J

25. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or

legislation which would abrogate them. [Miranda v. Arizona, 384 US 436, 491.]

26. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of

constitutional rights. [Sherar v. Cullen, 481, F 946.]

27. That Congress doth consent that the territory properly included within, and rightfully

belonging to the Republic of Texas, may be erected into a new state, to be called the

state of Texas, with a republican form of government, to be adopted by the people of

said republic ... The Public Statutes at Large of the United States of America, v.5, pp.

797-798,

28. Republican government. One in which the powers of sovereignty are vested in the

people and are exercised by the people, either directly, or through representatives chosen

by the people, to whom those powers are specially delegated. [In re Duncan, 139 U.S.

449, 11 S.Ct. 573, 35 L.Ed. 219; Minor v. Happersett, 88 U.S. (21 Wall.) 162,22 L.Ed.

627." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p. 626.]

29. This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance

thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United

States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be

bound thereby; any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary

notwithstanding. [Constitution for the United States of America, Article VI, Clause 2.]

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 5 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. ai.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 58 of 70 PageID 58

30. COURT. The person and suit of the sovereign; the place where the sovereign sojourns

with his regal retinue, wherever that may be. [Black's Law Dictionary, 5th Edition, page

318.]

31. COURT. An agency of the sovereign created by it directly or indirectly under its

authority, consisting of one or more officers, established and maintained for the purpose

of hearing and determining issues oflaw and fact regarding legal rights and alleged

violations thereof, and of applying the sanctions of the law, authorized to exercise its

powers in the course of law at times and places previously determined by lawful

authority. [Isbill v. Stovall, Tex.Civ.App., 92 S.W.2d 1067, 1070; Black's Law

Dictionary, 4th Edition, page 425]

32. COURT OF RECORD. To be a court of record a court must have four characteristics,

and may have a fifth. They are:

A. A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the

person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.

220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,

Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,

425, 426]

B. Proceeding according to the course of common law [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App.

220, 175 S. W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also,

Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed.,

425, 426]

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 6 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 59 of 70 PageID 59

C. Its acts and judicial proceedings are enrolled, or recorded, for a perpetual memory

and testimony. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga.,

24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488,2 L.R.A.

229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E. 229, 231]

D. Has power to fine or imprison for contempt [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383;

The Thomas Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal 225; Erwin v.

U.S., D.C.Ga., 37 F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, 117 N.E.

229, 231.1(Biack's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

E. Generally possesses a seal. [3 Bl. Comm. 24; 3 Steph. Comm. 383; The Thomas

Fletcher, C.C.Ga., 24 F. 481; Ex parte Thistleton, 52 Cal225; Erwin v. U.S., D.C.Ga., 37

F. 488, 2 L.R.A. 229; Heininger v. Davis, 96 Ohio St. 205, ll7 N.E. 229, 23l.J[Black's

Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

33 ....our justices, sheriffs, mayors, and other ministers, which under us have the laws of our

land to guide, shall allow the said charters pleaded before them in judgment in all their

points, that is to wit, the Great Charter as the common law.... [Confirmatio Cartarum,

November 5, 1297" "Sources of Our Liberties" Edited by Richard L. Perry, American

Bar Foundation.]

34. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be served on any one for any

holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court. Magna Carta, Article 34.

35. A judge shall not allow any relationship to influence judicial conduct or judgment. A

judge shall not lend the prestige of judicial office to advance the private interests of the

judge or others; nor shall a judge convey or permit others to convey the impression that

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 7 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 60 of 70 PageID 60

they are in a special position to influence the judge. A judge shall not testifY voluntarily

as a character witness.6

36. A. The following persons shall comply with all provisions of this Code.

(2) A full time commissioner, master, magistrate, or a referee of a court listed in

(1) above. 7

37. Trespass. Any misfeasance or act of one man whereby another is injuriously treated or

damnified. 3 Bl. Comm. 208 An injury or misfeasance to the person, or rights of another

person, done with force and violence, either actual or implied in law. s

38. Trespass. In its more limited and ordinary sense, it signifies an injury committed with

violence, and this violence may be either actual or implied; and the law will imply

violence though none is actually used...9

39. "Inferior courts" are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose

proceedings are not according to the course of the common law." Ex Parte Kearny, 55

Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652; Criminal courts proceed according to statutory

law. Jurisdiction and procedure is defined by statute. Likewise, civil courts and

admiralty courts proceed according to statutory law. Any court proceeding according to

statutory law is not a court of record (which only proceeds according to common law); it

is an inferior court.

40. However, no statutory or com;titutional court (whether it be an appellate or supreme

court) can second guess the judgment of a court of record. "The judgment of a court of

6 Texas Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 2 B.


7 Texas Code of Judicial Conduct Canon 6 A.(2)
8 Black's Law Dictionary 2"" Ed. Pg. 1171
9 Black's Law Dictionary 2"' Ed. Pg. 1171

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 8 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 61 of 70 PageID 61

record whose jurisdiction is final, is as conclusive on all the world as the judgment of

this court would be. It is as conclusive on this court as it is on other courts. It puts an end

to inquiry concerning the fact, by deciding it." Ex parte Watkins, 3 Pet., at 202-203.

[cited by SCHNECKLOTH v. BUSTAMONTE, 412 U.S. 218,255 (1973)]

u.
Findings of Fact, Discussion and Conclusion of Law

41. The records show the plaintiff Townsend filed an action against defendants named

herein;

42. The record shows that the above entitled court of record concluded the issues of the

court and issued an order in favor of the plaintiff on the 18th day of August, 20 15;

43. The record shows that the magistrate assumed the duties of the tribunal without leave of
court, and issued his own order on the 2nd day of September, 2015 after a hearing that

had been ordered by this court to be removed from the calender overturning the court's

order without leave of court and without any party of the action showing just cause why

said order was invalid.

44. The record shows that the clerk accepted for the record an order entitled FINAL

JUDGMENT and filed September 2nd, 2015 from an officer of the court not authorized

to make such an order;

45. The record shows that defendants moved this court to dismiss plaintiff's action against

them citing code foreign to this court of record and said motion was denied by the court.

46. The genius of a court of record is not to be undermined. It is the birthright of every

American to settle issues in a court of record, if he so chooses. That choice has been

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 9 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 62 of 70 PageID 62

made in this matter, and has been so stated in the first paragraph in this action. Further,

Article 5, Section 15, mandates that there shall be in each county a court ofrecord. 10

47. The magistrate is a person appointed or elected to perform ministerial service in a court

of record 11 because all judicial functions in a court of record are reserved to the tribunal,

which must be independent of the magistrate.

48. The magistrate of this court has usurped the independent powers of the tribunal of this

court of record by making, under color of law, discretionary judgments which are

reserved to and should have been made by the tribunal independently of the person of

the magistrate designated generally to hold it. 12

49. On May 28'\ 2015 Randall Todd Townsend filed a claim consisting of Actions for

Trespass and Actions for Trespass on the Case for damages. The opening sentence

decreed, "Comes now, Randall Todd Townsend, ("Townsend") a people of Texas,

hereinafter plaintiff, in this court of record and complains ..... "

50. Nowhere did the magistrate object to the plaintiff being a people of Texas. Nor did the

magistrate object to the court being a court of record.

51. At no time did any of the defendants object to the court being a court of record.

52. It is the design of our system of jurisprudence that conrts have no jurisdiction until a

party comes forth and declares a cause needing resolution. The particular jurisdiction

10 There shall be established in each county in this State a County Coutt, which shall be a court of record; Texas
Constitution, Article 5 Section 15
II Official's duty is "ministerial" when it is absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of a specific duty
arising from fixed and designated filets. (Long v. Seabrook, 260 S.C. 562, 197 S.E. 2d 659, 662; Black's Law
Dictionary, Fifth Edition, page 899}
12 One characteristic of a court of record: A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of
the person of the magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo. App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex
parte Gladhill, 8 Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689]
[Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd ToWDsend Page 10ofl5


Cause v.
State of Texas et. aL
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 63 of 70 PageID 63

depends on how the cause is declared by the plaintiff or counterplaintiff. Jurisdiction

may be administrative, at law, in equity, or in any of many other formats. In this case the

jurisdiction is at law in a court of record under the sovereign authority of one of the

people.

53. It is essential to understand what are a sovereign, a magistrate, a court, and a court of

record.

54. A court is "The person and suit of the sovereign." 13

55. Who is the sovereign? It is the people either in plural 14 or in the singular capacity. 15 In

singular capacity in this case, it is Randall Todd Townsend, one of the people as

contemplated in the Constitution for The United States of America and the Texas

Constitution of 1876.

56. Texas, the State of Texas and the United States of America have no general sovereignty.

Their's is a clipped sovereignty. Whatever sovereignty they have is limited to their

constitutionally defined spheres of control. The general sovereignty is reserved to the

people without diminishment. 16 When a state attempted to diminish one's rights, it was

13Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426


14 PEOPLE, n. [L. populus.) The body of persons who compose a community, town, city or nation. We say, the people of
a town; the people of London or Paris; the English people. In this sense, the word is not used in the plural, but it
comprehends all classes of inhabitants, considered as a collective body, ... Webster's I 828 Dictionary
15 PEOPLE .... Considered as .... Any portion of the inhabitants of a city or country. Ibid.
16 "... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they
are sovereigns without subjects. .. with none to govern but themselves" CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dall419, 454,
I L Ed440, 455 @DALL 1793 pp471-472 "The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign, are
entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King hy his prerogative. Through the medium of their
Legislature they may exercise all the powers which previous to the Revolution could have been exercised either by the
King alone, or by him in conjunction with his Parliament; ... " Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendel19 (N.Y.)(l829), 21 American
Decision 89; IOC Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Oom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec. 1'67; 48 C
Wharves Sec. 3, 7.

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 11 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 64 of 70 PageID 64

determined that the state could not diminish rights of the people. 17

57. It is by the prerogative of the sovereign18 whether and how a court is authorized to

proceed. In this case, the chosen form of the court is that of a court of record.

58. A qualifying feature of a court of record is that the tribunal is independent of the

magistrate appointed to conduct the proceedings. 19

59. The magistrate is a person appointed or elected to perform ministerial service in a court

of record20 His service is ministerial because all judicial functions in a court of record

are reserved to the tribunal, and, by definition of a court of record, that tribunal must be

independent of the magistrate. The non-judicial functions are "ministerial" because they

are absolute, certain and imperative, involving merely execution of specific duties

arising from fixed and designated facts.

Ill. Impeachment and Writ

60. THE COURT, HAVING REVIEWED THE THE FACTS, THE RECORD, AND THE

PROCESS BY WHICH THE RULING WAS ISSUED, and finding that the magistrate

rendered and wrote rulings without leave of court; and finding that the orderly decorum

17 Hertado v. California, 100 US 516


!8 " ... at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people; and they are truly the sovereigns of the country, but they
are sovereigns without subjects ... with none to govern but themselves..... [CHISHOLM v. GEORGIA (US) 2 Dal! 419,
454, I LEd 440,455 @DALL (1793) pp471-472.] The people of this State, as the successors of its former sovereign,
are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King by his prerogative. [Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wend. 9
(N.Y.) (1829), 21 Am.Dec. 89 IOC Const. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em.Dom. Sec. 3, 228; 37 C Nav.Wat. Sec. 219; Nuls Sec.
167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7.]
19 Court of Record: A judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising functions independently of the person of the
magistrate designated generally to hold it [Jones v. Jones, 188 Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W.127, 229; Ex parte Gladhill, 8
Mete. Mass., 171, per Shaw, C.J. See, also, Ledwith v. Rosalsky, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N.E. 688, 689][Black's Law
Dictionary, 4th Ed., 425, 426]
20 Long v. Seabrook, 260 S.C. 562, 197 S.E.2d 659, 662; Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, p 899

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page12ofl5


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 65 of 70 PageID 65

of the court was replaced by defective impromptu process and usurpation oflegislative

and court powers without leave of court,

61. And, finding that the clerk of the court improperly accepted for filing an order from a

magistrate without leave of court,

62. And, desiring that fair justice be served for all parties, defendants, as well as plaintiff,

63. NOW THEREFORE THE COURT issues this WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM

NOBIS RESIDANT, to wit,

64. THE COURT HEREBY IMPEACHES AND RESCINDS the order titled FINAL

JUDGMENT filed September 2d, 2015, citing codes foreign to this court and a copy of

the first page of which is attached to this writ.

65. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that any further rogue

interference with court procedures by any officer of this court including the magistrate,

court administrator or clerk will be a contempt of the court and perpetrators will be held

in contempt without motion or hearing.

66. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that the original judgment of

this court of record filed on August 181h, 2015 be reinstated as written with the time to

show cause having passed the 30 days allowed in said order on September 241h, 2015,

the date the latest defendant was served a copy of the JUDGMENT.

67. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED the magistrate and the

defendants are hereby invited to file and serve on all other interested parties and

magistrate a brief no later than October 201h, 2015 to show cause to this court why this

order is not valid or should be modified. There will be no oral argument. The court,

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 13 of 15


Cause v.
State of Texas et. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 66 of 70 PageID 66

mindful of the rights of the parties and the impornmce of fair play, willlibemlly construe

the written arguments presented.

68. It is further ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and DECREED that this is the final judgment

that disposes of all claims and causes of action by and against all parties herein and aU

defendants a.re ordered to pay plaintiff damages as decreed in the ruling filed on August

18"', 2015.

September 21", 2015, Hamilton County, Texas.

THE COURT

Randall Todd Tovvnsend


Attornatus J>rivatus

State of Texas Hamiito~m Couty


Service of Process I00 West Main St.
Secretary of State Hamilton, Texas 76531
James E. Rudder Building
1019 Brazos, Room l 05
Austin, Texas 78701

City of Hamillton Kenneth lAvell


200 East Main St. 1108 S Rice St
Hamilton, Texas 7653! Hamilton, TX 76531

GRgBewley J111stlin Ca~n~~wsy


1108 S Rice St. 1108 S Rice St.
Hamilton, TX 7653! Hamilton, TX 76531

Writ of Error, Order to Show Page 14 of 15


Cause v,
State of Texas d. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 67 of 70 PageID 67

Robert McGinnis Charlie Haii(Dick)


204 East Main St. 541 N. Rice
Hamilton, TX 76531 Hamilton, TX 76531

Justin Slone John Rathburn


204 East Main St. 1108 S Rice St.
Hamilton, TX 76531 Hamilton, TX 76531

Brandi Graham
1108 S Rice St.
Hamilton, TX 76531

Writ of Error, Order to Show Randall Todd Townsend Page 15 ofl5


Cause v.
State of Texas ct. al.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 68 of 70 PageID 68

EXHIBIT G -Video Transcript Dated April20'h, 2016

Wednesday, April 20, 2016, 2:33:48 PM. The video is 38 seconds long.
BR(Becci Rowe, Municipal Court Clerk and the Police Secretary)
RT(Randall Townsend)

RT: Hi, yea, I need to make sure the Chief of Police gets this paperwork He said he was unaware of
this one that I filed. (Handed BR the Hamilton District Court Cause# CV04615, Filed 21 September,
2015).
BR: OK
RT: That's his copy, Thank You.
The END.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 69 of 70 PageID 69

EXHIBIT H- Video Transcript Dated April4'\ 2016

Created Monday April4'h, 2016 at 10:05.18AM. The video is 1 minute and 17 seconds long.
BR(Becci Rowe, Municipal Court Clerk and the Police Secretary)
RT(Randall Townsend)

BR: Can I help you?


RT: I'd like to get some information and give you some information. You need to make sure the Chief
of Police gets that("U.S. Constitutional Right To Travel" by Jack McLamb, a Police Officer 5 pages of
Case Law). And when you signed this, Ma'am, who is this?
BR: That is who I'm swearing the statement too.
RT: And who is that?
BR: It is Erin Craig, she is the Deputy Clerk.
RT: Can you write her name down for me? It does not have a printed name, so I don't know
who ... And did you give Judge Sparks the letter that I sent? (showed her the letter dated 11 March,
2016, through the window).
BR: Yes.
RT: OK, so he received all that. OK, so now I know who to deal with. And Judge Sparks did not sign
any of this paperwork at all? Only you and the other lady did?
BR: Yes.
RT: OK, so he's not taking action against me, you are, right?
BR: No, Sir.
RT: That is who signed it Ma'am.
BR: The City of Hamilton is.
RT: Well, you signed it. Thank You.
BR: You are very welcome.
RT: Make sure the Chief of Police gets that please?
BR: I will.
RT: Thank You.
The END.
Case 4:16-cv-00711-A Document 1 Filed 07/29/16 Page 70 of 70 PageID 70

JS44 (Rev.07116) CIVIL COVER SHEET


The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the infonnation contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided b~ l??al. rules of.c<_mrt. This fonn, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is reqUired for the use ofihe Clerk of Court for the
purpose ofuutlatmg the ctvtl docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Sr.-fr: c 1- Tcx-1-> C:!TY ef 1//f#IIL /<JI"l


fV,-N;J/1-t L (20 (!1ifi. r fi'Gir./N 15; .jft5o'V Y,llf!8f/o V~AI 0(-"Nt"P' t06/W
tL. 1 - I
flt3Y ftuwi!ll"""'i7'-/ /Ill<'! C.l!41lLcs SjM&JC..f.
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff _d..Aii? { L-TON County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
(EXCEPT.. IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PlAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND TNVOLVED.

(C) Attomeys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Numbe1) Attorneys (If Know11)

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an "X"inOneBoxOnlyJ III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" tn"One Box for Plaintiff
(For Diversity Cases OnM and One Box for Defendant)
01 U.S. Government 0 3 Federal Question PTF DEF PTF DEF
Plaintiff {U.S. Government Not a Party) Citi1.cn of This State 0 I 0 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 0 4 04
of Business In This State

~2 U.S. Government
Defendant
04 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item Ill)
Citizen of Another State 0 2 0 2 Incorporated and Principal Place
of Business In Another State
0 5 0 5

Citi1,cn or Subject of a 0 3 0 3 Foreign Nation 0 6 0 6


Forei ll Count

0 II 0 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal28 USC !58 a 375 False Claims Act
0 120 Marine 310 Airplane 0 365 Personal Injury - ofPropcrty21 USC881 423 Withdrawal 0 376 Qui Tam (31 USC
0 130 Miller Act 0 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 usc 157 3729(a))
0 140 Negotiable Instrument 0 367 Health Care/
f.~~\\!J~~~iil:!iii!!!liil~ 00
Liability
400 State Reapportionment
1
0 150 ~cc~:";;':;;"';,~'~,~;':'/;':;;~~~
320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical 4J0Antitrust
Slander Pcrsonallnj1lr)' 0 430 Banks and Banking
0 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers' Product Liability 0 450 Commerce
0 152 Recovery ofDefa\Jltcd Liability 0 368 Asbestos Personal 0 460 Deportation

PERS~~~~~YPROPERTY ~~!'~;L,;~.!'.t'~~!!~!JJll!ft~~~~ ~
Smdent Loans 0 340Marine Injury Product !fij!iiliil~ 0 470 Racketeer Influenced and
(Excludes Veterans) ''' '., ! ;' Corrupt Organimtions
0 153 RccovcryofOverpayment 0 480 Consumer Credit
of Veteran's Benefit~ 0 370 Other Fraud M 862 0 490 Cable/Sat TV
0 \60 StOckholders' Suits 355 Motor Vehicle a 37 I Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Management 863 DJWC/DIWW (405(g)) 0 850 Securities/Commodities!
0 190 Other Contract Product Liability 0 380 Other Personal Relations 864 SS!D Title XVI Exchange
0 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 740 Railway Labor Act 865 RSI (405(g)) 0 890 Other StaMory Actions
0 196 Franchise 0 385 Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 0 891 Agricultural Acts
Product Liability Leave Act 0 893 Environmental Matters
"'ij~~illJ~~fE]illii!ii)]~~;~
~
790 Other Labor Litigation
791 Employee Retirement li!l1!i!J~~~~~gj!i'j~'~i;j;~;' 0 895 ~~dom ofinfonnation
0 Habeas Corpus: Income Security Act 0 896 Arbitration
0 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee 0 899 Administrative Procedure
0 230 Rent Lca~e & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate Act/Review or Appeal of
0 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Sentence Agency Decision
0 245 Tort Product Liability Accommodations 530 Genera! 950 Constitutionality of
0 290 All Other Real Property 445 Amer. w/Disabilities
Employment
535 Death Penahy
Other:
;;,:,~!!l'"''' State Statutes

446 Amer. w/Disabilities 540 Mandamus & 01her 465 Other Immigration
Other 550 Civil Rights Actions
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee -
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGIN (Place an "X" in One Box Only)
'pt. 1 Original 0 2 Removed from 0 3 Remanded from 0 4 Reinstated or 0 5 Transferred from 0 6 Multidistrict 0 8 Multidistrict
Proceeding State Court Appellate Court Reopened Another District Litigation- Litigation~
(.~peci. ') Transfer Direct File
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing (Do rwt citejurisdictimwl statutes U11/i:ss diversity):

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION 1-;;...,===c-:-;:-=c----------------------------


Brief description of cause: 'Tftf
l.f
VII. REQUESTED IN 0 CHECK IF TillS IS A CLASS ACTION CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P. JURY DEMAND: 0 Yes Qi:No
Vlll. RELATED CASE(S) 1/AA?t<., o"t (vvtV7y t)l.f-r/!.t( r 7vtJ'-c.
(See instl1lclions):
IF ANY JUDGE rf'H; t f2o!Uill rs t!1..1 DOCKET NUMBER

RECEIPT#
-----
AMOUNT
--------
APPLYING TFP
---
JUDGE
------ MAG. JUDGE

Anda mungkin juga menyukai