Eminent Domain v. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT
DECLARED IN THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION:
The Supreme Court of the United States of America on 6/23/05
ruled that cities could seize private property for use by other private parties
or developers if they can show a better profit from the use of the property.
The sole purpose of government is to protect the lives,
liberties and possessions (all three are termed property) of each citizen. This
ruling signals a shift in the understanding of the role of government from
American fundamentals of liberty to the socialist state that says the state can
do all things for the betterment of the whole. No man ever joined a society for
the betterment of the whole but for the safety of himself and his liberties and
Avery v. GBRA et. al. – State Sovereign Immunity
v. THE SOLE PURPOSE OF GOVERNMENT DECLARED IN THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION & FEMALE STATE
Ronald F. Avery filed his Petition for Review in the Supreme
Court of Texas on 6/24/05 challenging the State’s “presumption” of “sovereign
immunity” to kill the citizen and steal or destroy his liberty and possessions
without recourse to the courts of Texas unless waived by statute (Texas Tort
Claims Act of 1969) or by special legislative resolution obtained by the
The Fourth Court of Appeals in San Antonio affirmed the Trial Court
dismissing Avery’s case because the state has “absolute sovereign immunity.”
Avery’s grounds for Petitioning the Supreme Court for Review are:
has only been a constitutionally empowered state for one year, namely,
1846. The Texas Supreme Court ruled in Hosner v. DeYoung in 1847 that
the citizen could not sue the state without its permission and then only in the
method prescribed by that permission. This was the adoption of ancient
monarchial common law that had been successfully refuted in the 1600s resulting
in the American Revolution and the downfall of all monarchies in Europe.
The Texas Constitution correctly prescribes how
the government is to be empowered namely by the “delegated authority” of the
citizen limited by what he holds in himself, namely, the God given right to
protect their life, liberty and possessions by force if necessary.
Because the citizen does not have the right to
invade or harm the life, liberty or possessions of another, he cannot delegate
that to his representative or his government. Therefore, the government can
never acquire the authority or immunity to harm a citizen without recourse to
The Texas Tort Claims Act of 1969 “presumes” the
state has “absolute sovereign immunity” to harm the citizens without recourse
to the courts of Texas.
The TTCA then waives some of that “absolute sovereign immunity.” The TTCA
relies on Hosner v. DeYoung as the first case in Texas to presume state “absolute sovereign
immunity.” The Hosner Court
did not cite any law whatsoever to make its ruling.
However, in 1924 the Supreme Court of Texas said
in Dickson v. Strickland that the citizen was sovereign in Texas and that the
government was empowered by their delegated authority in direct
contradiction to Hosner v. DeYoung. The Dickson Court decision permitted the
first woman to run and hold the office of Governor of Texas (Ma Ferguson). The Dickson Court cited
substantive fundamental constitutional provisions to back its decisions, Art 1
Sec 2 and Art 16 Sec 48 and the Texas Declaration of Independence and
Constitution of 1836.
The Texas Tort Claims Act is not a mere tool to
protect the taxpayers of Texas from judgments for inept state employees but a
means of empowering government upon the ancient monarchial perception of the
ownership of property vested in the state rather than the citizens.
Both of these cases cannot live together in Texas. Either Dickson
v. Strickland stands and the citizens are sovereign and own their property
and women can run for public office in Texas
or Hosner v. DeYoung stands and the State of Texas owns all property and
has “absolute sovereign immunity” to waive or assert in any degree and may kill
the citizens and steal or destroy their liberties and possessions without
recourse to the courts and we have bad news for Carole Keeton Strayhorn.
Read all about it at www.PostWTC.com/frame-3.html
then click on Avery’s Petition for Review under SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS at the
bottom of navigation bar on the left.
You will be amazed to find how our state has been empowered
not under the constitution but under ancient monarchial common law for 158
years. Avery was born 100 years after the Hosner Court ruling and he filed his
Petition for Review at the Supreme Court of Texas on his 58th
birthday. He feels that he is carrying 35 million (correction 22 million) Texans on his shoulders and
is blessed to have been given this opportunity to set the State of Texas back
on the foundation the citizens had originally intended back in 1836 as a
Republic and in 1845 as a State in the Union and in 1878 and in 1924.