News Flash:

Date:       6/24/2005



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 possessions.


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 Plaintiff.


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:


·        Texas 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 courts.


·        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 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.