Avery v. GBRA et. al. 25th
Avery v. GBRA et. al. 4th Civil Court of Appeals State of Texas 04-04-00582-CV
2.1. However, nowhere in this Memorandum Opinion are the “well-settled principles of law” revealed, explained or referenced. This appeal was made so the appellate court would clarify these so-called “well-settled principles,” because it is clear in the Appellant’s 150 plus page brief that there is no such thing as state sovereign immunity to harm citizens without recourse to the courts.
2.2. Appellant showed the Appellate Court Dickson v Strickland 1924 wherein the Supreme Court of Texas declared the citizen to be sovereign over the state they created for their protection.
2.3. The Appellant also showed the Appellate Court in this same case that a power to harm or invade the lives liberties and possessions of the people could not be presumed but must be explicitly declared in the fundamental law (State Constitution). The Appellees admitted in their brief page 7 second paragraph that, “the Texas Tort Claims Act merely waives to a limited degree the general presumption of immunity.” No one has shown the Appellant a case, a statute or a constitutional amendment that has overturned Dickson v Strickland declaring the citizens sovereign and their declaration that there can be no presumption of immunity for state harm against the citizens.
2.4. The Appellate Court did not show the Appellant, Avery what Supreme Court ruling or constitutional amendment had overturned Dickson v Strickland. And without such overturning the state is not sovereign over the citizens and do not have immunity to harm them.
3. The Appellate Court further complicates these “well-settled principles of law” by upholding the violation of Art 2 Sec 1 of the Texas Constitution, wherein they say, “In Texas, sovereign immunity deprives a trial court of subject matter jurisdiction for lawsuits in which the state or certain governmental units have been sued unless the state consents to suit.” But this would be a combination of two separate branches of government into the legislature which is forbidden in said Art 2 Sec 1. This the appellant showed them in his appeal.
4. The Appellate Court says, “We decline Avery’s invitation to judicially abrogate the doctrine of sovereign immunity; such a drastic and fundamental change should be made, if at all, by the Legislature or the Supreme Court.” (bolding added)
is totally erroneous for the Appellant never “invited” them to “abrogate”
sovereign immunity. Abrogate means to annul or revoke. This is what is done to
lawful things. But to annul or revoke an unlawful thing is not necessary.
Rather, the Appellant belligerently
insisted that sovereign immunity be declared void from inception as if never
written under the courts judicial authority and its specific authority to rule
on what is repugnant common law under Art 16 Sec 48 of the
5. Lastly, the Appellate Court Opined that “waiver or abrogation of immunity is within Legislature’s sole province”
Appellant showed, exhaustively, in his brief that this is error. He showed in the
Southwestern Law Journal (Sw L J 23:341 My’ 69) that there is no constitutional grant
of sovereign immunity to the state of Texas that it was judicially created in
error in 1847 in Hosner v DeYoung without a single citation of case law, statute,
or constitutional provision. The Journal confirmed that sovereign immunity
5.2. The Appellant showed that Art 16 Sec 48 forbids the Legislature from asserting or waiving or adopting any common law or case law in existence at the time of the founding which is repugnant to the Constitution of Texas or the U.S. Constitution.
Appellant also showed that the judiciary of
not be alarmed at all the case law the Appellate Court cited. They all have the
Texas Tort Claims Act (TTCA) and the
6.1. The TTCA does not grant sovereign immunity to the state but rather, just as Appellees agree, waives to a limited degree the general presumption of immunity. As stated earlier the state cannot presume a right or authority against the property of its own citizens that create the state for their own protection.
6.2. The CPRC is merely a codification of the TTCA and does not develop any thing in it which is not present in the TTCA.
6.3. Therefore there is no foundation in substantial law or fundamental constitutional law for the lawful existence of sovereign immunity to harm the citizens without recourse to the courts or that would “deprive” the courts of subject matter jurisdiction to hear and apply the rule of law (Art 1 Sec 13) to the state and their employees for harm against the citizens.
Appellant has shown that the only justification for sovereign immunity in
the Appellant has exposed the weakness
of the 4th Court of Appeals of
8.1. The Appellant showed the 4th Court of Appeals Rev. Samuel Rutherford Lex Rex, 1644 and Algernon Sidney Discourses on Government, 1683 and John Locke First and Second Treatise of Civil Government 1689 wherein the people are shown to be sovereign forever and only their authority to protect their own lives liberties and possessions is delegated to their representatives and government. But authority to harm is not in the people, and, therefore, it is not transferable to the government. Further, the ownership of the property of the people is never alienable from the citizens to the state.
8.2. Therefore, government and their employees are never immune from liability for the harm done to the citizens by the state.
8.4. The Appellant further showed that the judiciary is to keep the legislature from exceeding its authority set by the people in the Constitution. (Alexander Hamilton, James Madison and Thomas Jefferson)
9. In short, the 4th Court of Appeals has failed to show the “well-settled principles of law” of sovereign immunity in their opinion or any case they cited. They are in want of substantial law in their effort to cover up the fact that the state does not have sovereign immunity to waive in any amount and as a result the Appellant need not show such a waiver in the absence of sovereign immunity held by the state.
10. Finally, I want to acknowledge God in my endeavors and deliverance even if the Supreme Court also decides to continue the state’s war against me they have instituted against my land, improvements, contract rights, reputation, livelihood and liberty. For God knows how to deliver from evil, how to stay the hand of the wicked, to snare the foot of the trapper and open a door of escape for the innocent. May he also grant those who keep his works (Life, Death, Resurrection and Ascension) the rod of iron to dash the nations to shivers as he promised in Rev.2:25-29. I thank God and Christ for my ancestors who picked up the rod of iron and still swing it in their absence and can pass it to us in our quotations. Amen