Professional Documents
Culture Documents
www.msfraud.org
CONSTABLE JOHNNY TODD
4
CAUSE NO. 05-09-00935-CV
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this date personally appeared and properly
identified as Robert John Wright, who, being first duly sworn did depose and state as follows:
1. My name is Robert John Wright. I am over the age of eighteen and have personal
knowledge of the facts contained in this affidavit as experienced, witnessed and documented, as
this affidavit pursuant to Rule 20.1 of the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure, stating under oath,
he is indigent and cannot pay, in whole or in part, any costs for court records, discovery,
transcripts, audiotapes, filing fees or any other resultant costs or materials required to perfect his
strictly due to the damages suffered as a direct and proximate cause of the acts and omissions of
defendant/appellees.
4. On December 12, 2008, in good faith and under penalty of perjury, Wright filed,
and the trial court granted, his Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs. Defendants contested and a
5. Wright arrived a few minutes before 9 a.m. At 9:23, the entire floor of the
courthouse appeared empty except for one attorney and her client. Wright went next door to the
restroom and was back in less than one minute. When Wright returned, counsel for Fulbright
and Todd were seated in the courtroom. Shortly thereafter the judge entered. Wright also found
it odd that when his case was called, neither attorney for the defendants announced to the court
who they were - or who they represented. Appellant believes, but can not yet confirm, that the
judge and the defense counsel were engaged in a closed chamber meeting immediately prior to
Evidence
provider who has been treating him for severe Post Traumatic Stress Syndrome and Legal Abuse
Syndrome caused specifically by defendants’ acts, resulting in a drastic decline in his ability to
read, write, comprehend, or follow instructions. The letter confirmed they are providing services
at no cost due to Wright’s indigence. Wright also submitted a notarized affidavit from a friend
declaring she pays for all of Wright’s basic living expenses. Months of Wright’s bank
8. In response, Robert Davis, counsel for Defendant Todd asked: “Isn’t that a
website that teaches people how to file lawsuits for free?” Davis made that statement knowing it
was false and Wright alleges it was used to create, and obviously did create, judicial prejudice
against Wright. Wright invites this Court to visit the website referenced below to determine
whether Davis’ statement was true - or another documented deliberate misrepresentation to the
court.
9. Contrary to Davis’ bald assertion, Wright has always discouraged victims from
representing themselves, even knowing they have a remote chance of finding ethical and
competent legal representation that understand and comprehend the civil and criminal intricacies
source for information and support to those victimized by mortgage and securities fraud and
others who want to learn about the progress being made to combat this massive fraud. The site is
listed on legal websites as a resource for information and is visited by all levels of courts,
including Supreme Courts in the United States and other countries, lawyers, law firms, judges;
government, regulatory and law enforcement agencies, and has been mentioned in news articles
11. Describing MSFraud.org in a 2007 article written for the United States
Foreclosure Network, the author/lawyer wrote: “This site alone should keep everyone in the
industry up late at night. Nonetheless, it is a must-read to gain insight into just how serious this
Trial Court Refuses to Strike Inadmissible Evidence - Claiming this is Not a Criminal Trial.
12. Counsel for Defendant Todd submitted alleging Wright’s assets listed during his
2005 attempt to file bankruptcy. Wright objected, and moved the court to strike those documents
as they were outdated, and more importantly, most of the assets listed were stolen, damaged,
13. The court responded to Wright’s request to strike by stating on the record: “You
14. The damages suffered as a result of ten (10) years of the unlawful conduct leading
up to and during the unlawful eviction have extinguished Wright’s ability to make a living.
During the wrongful eviction, Constable Todd DENIED Wright and his roommate’s request to
collect the tools of their trades. Their tools and all of Wright’s supplies needed for his business
were never recovered. Interestingly, someone involved in the unlawful eviction found the key to
Wright’s lockbox and took his birth certificate, baptism certificate, Social Security card and his
15. When it should have been obvious that Wright has no income, the court inquired
about taxes. When Wright told the court he does not meet the IRS’ minimum income
requirements to file, the trial judge became visibly upset. (On three (3) separate occasions, the
IRS has verified under IRS rules that Wright does not meet the income requirements and
http://www.usfn.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=Home&CONTENTID=5794&TEMPLATE=/CM/HTMLDisplay.c
fm&SECTION=Article_Library
instructed him not to file a tax return.) The court also appeared visibly disgusted by Wright’s
severely damaged economic status, but made no inquiry as to its root cause.
16. Despite all the evidence supporting Wright is indigent, the court ordered Wright
to pay the $527.00 filing fee and any other costs associated with his case. This shocking abuse
17. The court ordering an indigent to pay court costs forced Appellant to apply to the
18. Appellant does not qualify for a loan to pay court costs. Aside from Wright’s
inability to work due to the damages suffered, Appellant’s former credit score of 798 was
another casualty of what the Texas Eastern District court confirmed in Federal Trade
Commission vs. EMC Mortgage Corporation2, No. 4:08-cv-338 (E.D. Tex. Sept. 9, 2008) as
only one of Defendant EMC’s “illegal” practices. It is important to note that the FTC
investigation, lawsuit and paltry $28 Million dollar settlement, which critics allege were paid
from taxpayer Bailout funds, came about after Wright was flown to Washington D.C. in 2005 to
meet with four (4) FTC attorneys who, upon seeing the exhaustive evidence in Wright’s case
19. It is also worth noting that earlier this year the FTC contacted Wright to inform
him they had been monitoring MSFraud.org looking for additional EMC victims and asked if he
would create a link to the FTC on his website, and ask those with evidence of EMC’s breach of
20. Rule 25.1(a) provides that a party may perfect an appeal merely by filing a notice
of appeal. Providing security for costs is no longer a prerequisite to invoking the court of
appeals' jurisdiction. Thus, an indigent party is no longer precluded from perfecting appeal and
challenging the trial court's order sustaining a contest to the party's affidavit of indigence. If a
party is required to pay for preparation of the appellate record and does not do so or make
arrangements to do so, Rule 35.3 excuses the clerk and court reporter from filing the record and
Rule 37.3(b) provides that the appeal may be dismissed for want of prosecution. (In re Arroyo,
21. The Texas Supreme Court concluded however, that: “This avenue of appeal is
not adequate, however, unless the indigent party can obtain the record pertaining to the trial
court's ruling sustaining the contest to the affidavit of indigence. The court of appeals can and
should, on motion or its own initiative, require the clerk and court reporter under Rules
34.5(c)(1) and 34.6(d), respectively, to prepare and file the portions of the record necessary to
review an order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence. This has been the practice for
obtaining the relevant record for mandamus review of such orders. The burden of obtaining the
relevant portions of the record in this manner should be minimal. If the court of appeals
determines that the order sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence should be reversed, the
appellant can then obtain a full record under Rules 34.5(c)(1) and 34.6(d), and can supplement
his or her briefing under Rule 38.7. Pending resolution of an appellant's challenge to an order
sustaining a contest to an affidavit of indigence, Rule 35.3(c) precludes the court of appeals from
dismissing the appeal for appellant's failure to file the complete record, since the failure in such
GRANT this Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs. In the alternative and depending on the costs,
Appellant requests this Court grant a six-month leave until Appellant can collect the funds
____________________________________
Notary Public in and for the State of Texas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this the _28_ day of September, 2009, a true and correct copy of
the foregoing “Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs” was forwarded to opposing counsels listed
below by first-class mail.
Respectfully submitted,
_____________________
Robert John Wright – Appellant
P.O. Box 797762
Dallas, Texas 75379
(972) 955-6735
ROBERT J. DAVIS
State Bar No. 05543500
Matthews, Stein, Shiels, Pearce, Knott, Eden & Davis, L.L.P.
8131 LBJ Freeway, Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75251
972-234-3400
972-234-1750
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE TODD
DAVID N. KITNER
State Bar No. 11541500
STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4400
Dallas, Texas 75202
214-651-4300
214-651-4330 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEES FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI AND MICHAEL
SWARTZENDRUBER
CAUSE NO. 05-09-00935-CV
Jurisdictional Statement
This court has jurisdiction to make an independent judicial determination on Appellant’s request
to certify that appellant is indigent under TRAP 20.1(h)(2) which states:
____________________________________
AFFIDAVIT
STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF DALLAS §
BEFORE ME, the undersigned authority, on this date personally appeared and properly
identified as Robert John Wright, who, being first duly sworn did depose and state as follows:
1. My name is Robert John Wright. I am over the age of eighteen and have personal
knowledge of the facts contained in this affidavit as experienced, witnessed and documented, as
1
2. Plaintiff/Appellant, Robert John Wright, hereby files his supplemental Affidavit
of Inability to Pay Costs (herein Affidavit) and Request for Certification based on new evidence
as defined by TRCP 145(a) of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (2005 Tex. Sup. Ct.
Amendment Misc. Docket No. 05-9156), which is recognized by the State of Texas, and states
under oath: I am indigent and cannot pay, in whole or in part, any costs for court records,
discovery, transcripts, audiotapes, filing fees or any other resultant costs or materials required to
perfect his appeal of the trial court’s final judgment entered on July 1, 2009, and provides the
following:
FACTS
3. Appellant realleges and incorporates all statements and exhibits contained in his
previous December 11, 2008 Affidavit filed with the trail court, along with his September 28,
2009 Affidavit filed with the appellate court as if fully set forth herein.
Trial Court Grants then Overrules Plaintiff’s 12/11/09 Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs
4. On December 11, 2008, in good faith and under penalty of perjury, Appellant
filed and the trial court duly granted his Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs. Appellee/Defendants
contested and a hearing was held four months later on 4/13/09. The trial court sustained the
contest despite Defendants’ failure to provide any evidence or testimony to rebut Appellant’s
sworn affidavit. On 4/14/09, the trial court issued an order, but failed to state any reason or legal
5. On September 29, 2009, Appellant timely filed a separate affidavit with the
appellate court.
2
6. On October 7 & 9, 2009, Appellees informally contested Appellant’s affidavit of
indigence.
7. On October 29, 2009, Appellant filed this request for certification and
NEW EVIDENCE
8. The trial court ordering Appellant (an indigent person) to pay court costs, forced
Appellant attests that his application for food stamps was granted on July 6, 2009 and
incorporates by reference to Exhibit A, a true and correct copy of the approval and food stamp
card issued and recognized by the State of Texas as “new” prima facia evidence to establish
9. TRCP Rule 145(a) defines a party who is unable to afford costs “as a person who
entitlements, that under the Texas Department of Human Services Guidelines, Appellant was and
remains well below the monthly income standard of $1,127.00 and therefore qualified to receive
his government entitlement: (a) at the time he filed his December 2008 affidavit and; (b) at the
ARGUMENT
11. In 2008, TRAP 20.1(c)(1) was revised to clarify that an affidavit of indigence
filed to proceed in the trial court without advance payment of costs is insufficient to establish
indigence of appeal; a separate affidavit must be filed with or before the notice of appeal.
3
12. Appellant timely filed a separate affidavit with the appellate court and entered on
the docket on September 29, 2009. TRAP 20.1(d)(2) directs the appellate clerk that: [If] the
affidavit of indigence is filed with the appellate clerk, the appellate clerk must send notice to the
trial court clerk, court reporter and all parties stating the deadline for filing a contest. The
appellate court docket does not show the trial court was notified.
was revised to provide that an appellate court must give an appellant who failed to file the proper
appellate indigence affidavit notice of the defect and an opportunity to cure it before dismissing
the appeal or affirming the judgment on that basis. (Id.) This Court did not send Appellant
14. Moreover, the Texas Rules of Appellate Procedures also address the filing of an
affidavit of indigence in the appellate court under TRAP 20.1(h)(2) and TRAP 20.1(d)(2).
15. If a party chooses to contest Appellant’s affidavit, that party may contest the
government entitlement portion only, and must provide irrefutable evidence to disprove
16. The clerk, court reporter and court recorder did not contest Appellant’s affidavit.
Under TRAP 20.1(e) the contest must be filed on or before the date set by the clerk if the
4
Appellant’s Inability to Pay Costs of Appeal
17. Rule 25.1(a) provides that a party may perfect an appeal merely by filing a notice
of appeal. Providing security for costs is no longer a prerequisite to invoking the court of
appeals' jurisdiction. Thus, an indigent party is no longer precluded from perfecting appeal and
challenging the trial court's order sustaining a contest to the party's affidavit of indigence. (Id.)
18. Formerly, “if a party is required to pay for preparation of the appellate record and
does not do so or make arrangements to do so, Rule 35.3 excuses the clerk and court reporter
from filing the record and Rule 37.3(b) provides that the appeal may be dismissed for want of
prosecution”. (In re Arroyo, No. 98-0152 (Tex. decided Oct. 15, 1998)
19. The Texas Supreme Court concluded however, that: “This avenue of appeal is not
adequate, however, unless the indigent party can obtain the record pertaining to the trial court's
ruling sustaining the contest to the affidavit of indigence. The court of appeals can and should,
on motion or its own initiative, require the clerk and court reporter under Rules 34.5(c)(1) and
34.6(d), respectively, to prepare and file the portions of the record necessary to review an order
20. If the court of appeals determines that the order sustaining a contest to an
affidavit of indigence should be reversed, the appellant can then obtain a full record under Rules
34.5(c)(1) and 34.6(d), and can supplement his or her briefing under Rule 38.7. Pending
Rule 35.3(c) precludes the court of appeals from dismissing the appeal for appellant's failure to
file the complete record, since the failure in such circumstances would not be appellant's fault”.
(In re Arroyo, No. 98-0152 (Tex. decided Oct. 15, 1998) (emphasis added).
5
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Wright’s believes his new evidence
meets his burden of proof that he is indigent and therefore respectfully requests this Court certify
that he is indigent and GRANT Wright’s Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs in all respects and
___________________________________
Robert John Wright – Plaintiff/Appellant
6
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certify that a copy of the foregoing instrument, minus the exhibit, was
delivered to the Defendants in the above cause by first class mail to the addresses below on
POB 797762
Dallas, Texas 75379
972-955-6735
ROBERT J. DAVIS
State Bar No. 05543500
Matthews, Stein, Shiels, Pearce, Knott, Eden & Davis, L.L.P.
8131 LBJ Freeway, Suite 700
Dallas, Texas 75251
972-234-3400
972-234-1750
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANT CONSTABLES
DAVID N. KITNER
State Bar No. 11541500
STRASBURGER & PRICE, LLP
901 Main Street, Suite 4400
Dallas, Texas 75202
214-651-4300
214-651-4330 (Facsimile)
ATTORNEY FOR DEFENDANTS FULBRIGHT & JAWORSKI AND MICHAEL
SWARTZENDRUBER
T: 214 855 8000
F: 214 855 8200
7
CAUSE NO. 05-09-00935-CV
ORDER
Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs based on new evidence, and the Court, having considered
Appellant’s new evidence and argument, finds Appellant is indigent as recognized by the
STATE of TEXAS and therefore his Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs should be GRANTED in
all respects.
certified as an indigent person and his Affidavit of Inability to Pay Costs is hereby GRANTED.
order on Appellant’s indigence is VACATED and all monies tendered to the trial court and
________________________________
JUSTICE PRESIDING