I read this verbatim except where noted otherwise to the jury:

Opening Argument:


Ladies and gentlemen of the jury, you have heard the State present its evidence and the state’s opening argument that revenge is not a defense in Texas law. I must add that revenge is also not a cause of action in the State of Texas, meaning that you can’t sue some body for revenge. There are no legal elements to prove with evidence to establish revenge as a motive or ‘cause of action.’ In fact the term ‘revenge’ as used by the State Prosecutor is not to be found in Black’s Law Dictionary.


The Prosecutor can say the word revenge all day long but he can’t prove it by legal elements under the law in Texas.


But there is a defense to a particular crime under the Texas Penal Code called Criminal Responsibility in chapters 6 and 7.


(Upon a sustained objection of the Prosecutor, I was not permitted to refer to the code sections of the Texas Penal Code and I asked the judge that if I left those cites out would that cure my opening argument, and he said, yes)


Under Texas Penal Code Section 6.04 entitled CAUSATION: CONDUCT & RESULTS I, the Defendant, Ronald F. Avery am innocent if:


I can show that the conduct or actions of other witnesses is sufficient, in itself, to produce the result, damage to a window at the office of GBRA, and that my own actions if taken alone are clearly insufficient to cause that damage then I, the Defendant, cannot be found guilty by law in Texas.


If I can show by evidence that employees at GBRA Intentionally Inflicted Emotional Distress on me, which is a crime and cause of action in the State of Texas, which resulted in an emotional outburst that damaged a window at the office of GBRA then I must be found innocent.


Now unlike the Prosecutor with no elements to show in law, I must prove some things to you. I must prove that:

GBRA Intentionally Inflicted Emotional Distress on me which has four elements I must prove which are:

Employees acted intentionally.

Employees conduct was extreme & outrageous.

Employee conduct caused Emotional Distress.

Emotional Distress was Severe.


Each one of the four elements just mentioned have legal definitions which must be shown by evidence.


First, to prove intent I must show that GBRA employees had a conscious desire to act in a way which caused me to have emotional distress. I believe that the evidence will go beyond intent and up to a higher level of either reckless disregard or criminal negligence. You will be given a definition of these in the charge from the judge.


Secondly, in order to prove that the conduct of GBRA employees was extreme and outrageous I may show that they harassed me, insulted me, breached existing relationships and understandings with me and that they had motive to do these things. I may also show that they abused a relationship with me that gave an apparent authority over me to effect my interest. I may further show that GBRA knew I was susceptible to emotional distress relating to my property. I believe that the evidence will prove that they went beyond mere outrageous actions by committing other crimes against me, upon showing the elements of criminal trespass on my property.


Thirdly, to prove that the conduct of GBRA employees actually caused my emotional distress, I may show that they could have foreseen the result of their actions and that no other cause led to my emotional distress outside their actions. But I believe the facts and evidence will show that GBRA employees knew that their actions on my property would cause mental and emotional anguish and distress.


Fourthly, to show that the emotional distress was severe I may show mental reactions, painful emotions, embarrassment, fright, grief, shame, humiliation, worry, emotional outburst, stress, anxiety, and even a chemical imbalance presumed by others, etc. Yes and I may also show that the crime I am charged with here today is also the fruit thereof.


All of this comes under the defense theory of Criminal Responsibility. To show that GBRA employees are Criminally Responsible for my conduct I must show the following additional elements:

GBRA actions or omissions were voluntary.

Culpable, or Blameworthiness, Mental State.

GBRA conduct caused the result.


First, to show that GBRA employee action was voluntary, I may show that no other person forced them to either take inappropriate action or failures to act where they had an obligation and duty. I believe the factual evidence will show that they acted in the commission of crimes and failed to act where they had a clear duty to mitigate the effects of their crimes and did so voluntarily.


Secondly, to show GBRA employees are blameworthy or culpable in their minds, I may show evidence of their intent, their knowledge, recklessness and negligence. I believe the facts will show the highest level of culpability.


Thirdly, to show GBRA conduct caused the result, I may show the elements of their intentional infliction of Emotional Distress on me.


If I can show that GBRA employees are Criminally Responsible for the damage to the window under prosecution today it is no defense for them that:


A different offense was committed then the one they committed or had intended.

A different person or property was injured, harmed, or otherwise affected.

The Criminally responsible belongs to a class that is legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity including state and official immunity §7.04.



Therefore, if it be shown that their acts are responsible, it is no defense that they did not intend to break a window at their office.


Here is my main defense theory provided by the Texas Penal Code Chapter 6 § 6.04 and also found in Umoja v. State 965 S.W.2d. 3, 9 (Tex. App. – Fort Worth 1997, no pet.):


If the additional cause, other than the defendant’s conduct is clearly sufficient by itself, to produce the result and the defendant’s conduct, by itself, clearly insufficient, then the defendant cannot be convicted.

That is to say if GBRA’s conduct is sufficient by itself, to produce the result and my conduct, by itself, clearly insufficient, then I cannot be convicted.


Now there is a test to determine if a party is Criminally Responsible by his own acts or the acts of another for whom he is Criminally Responsible:


The trial court should first remove from consideration the acts and conduct of the non-defendant (GBRA) then, if the evidence of the conduct of the defendant then on trial would be sufficient, in and of itself, to sustain the conviction, no submission of the law of principals (parties) is required.. on the other hand if the evidence introduced upon trial shows, or raises an issue, that the conduct of Defendant then on trial is not sufficient, in and of itself, to sustain a conviction, the state’s case rests upon the law of principals (parties) and is dependent, at least in part, upon the conduct of another. In such cases the law of principals must be submitted and made applicable to the facts of the case.


That is to say the state must show that I intended to damage a window at GBRA without any of the acts of GBRA or its employees. I believe that it cannot be shown by any facts that I had any motive, desire, intent, or interest in breaking a window without the emotional distress caused by GBRA employees.


Further if it be shown that the employees of GBRA are criminally responsible in their activities in an official capacity, then GBRA itself is Criminally Responsible even as a immune party or arm of the state of Texas.


Finally I must add that it is not necessary to prove that GBRA or its employees completed all the elements of a cause of action against them for Criminal Trespass on my property to show that they intentionally inflicted emotional distress on me resulting in the damage in question today. However, I believe the evidence will show facts that would support a cause of action against GBRA and its employees in Texas if they were not immune by their claim of sovereignty over the people of Texas. To show trespass I would have to show the following three elements:


I owned the land trespassed upon by GBRA.

GBRA caused the entry upon my land by instruction of their contractor and that:

The entry was physical.

The entry was intentional

The entry was voluntary

The trespass caused injury to the right of possession.


I believe that the evidence will show facts that will support an action for trespass if GBRA and its employees were not protected by adopted ancient monarchial common law repugnant to the constitution of Texas which I know to be unlawful.


Now I cannot close my opening argument without bringing up one more point. The parties that I will show are really criminally responsible are the same parties that filed the complaint being tried here today. And I should remind you also that this same group that could be criminally responsible, claim to have ‘sovereign immunity’ from prosecution in either civil or criminal court except where they have agreed to it. And further consider that GBRA is a state agency under state protection and that the case against me is being prosecuted by the state of Texas.


You will not have to remember all these things I just said in this opening argument as you listen to evidence because when the judge issues the charge to the jury there will be definitions of all these elements and terms. Now just try to sit back and enjoy listening to the evidence which I hope you may find most intriguing.


Thank you very much.