No. 04-0499-CV
|
Ronald F. Avery |
* * |
In the District Court |
|
Vs. |
* |
|
|
William E. West Jr.; David Welsch |
* * * * * |
25th Judicial District |
Brief on Perversion of Justice
In Support of Plaintiff’s Response
to
Defendants’ Special Exceptions
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now comes the Plaintiff, Ronald F. Avery, with his Brief on the Perversion of Justice in support of his Response to Defendants’ Motion for Special Exceptions and shows this court the following.
The Plaintiff discovered this truth a few years ago and was most amazed to later discover John Locke’s description of this phenomenon. While Plaintiff was in court from 1989 to 1995, many causes were denied him and he did in fact make an appeal to heaven and pray for the intervention of God because Plaintiff recognized that he was put into a state of war and the enemy had the court on their side and was using it to hurt Plaintiff. God intervened to the astonishment of the Plaintiff. A state of war is serious business and the court partakes in it if it cheats the injured out of their rights. It would be better to fear God and resist men and legislatures and win liberty, honesty, and property rights for men then to pervert the justice due one man and bring upon the court the condemnation of God. It would be better to fall out of favor with men and opportunity then to oppose God in his will for civil society.
2.
What
is a state of War
A state of war is when anyone or entity has invaded the property or property right of an innocent. Without further consideration this statement appears to be an over statement or over reaction. How can the braking of a concrete curb become a state of war against the owner of the curb?
The reason of John Locke clarifies the difference between a state of nature and a state of war which some still to this day think are one and the same thing. Rousseau in his Social Contract saw no difference. But there clearly is a difference as pointed out by Locke:
“Sec. 19. And here we have the plain difference between the state of nature and the state of war, which however some men have confounded, are as far distant, as a state of peace, good will, mutual assistance and preservation, and a state of enmity, malice, violence and mutual destruction, are one from another…
Thus a thief, whom I cannot harm, but by appeal to the law, for having stolen all that I am worth, I may kill, when he sets on me to rob me but of my horse or coat; because the law, which was made for my preservation, where it cannot interpose to secure my life from present force, which, if lost, is capable of no reparation, permits me my own defence, and the right of war, a liberty to kill the aggressor, because the aggressor allows not time to appeal to our common judge, nor the decision of the law, for remedy in a case where the mischief may be irreparable. Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man's person, makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.”[1]
Therefore we have the distinction: “Want of a common judge with authority, puts all men in a state of nature: force without right, upon a man’s person makes a state of war, both where there is, and is not, a common judge.”
A minor invasion without right upon the possession of an innocent party can evolve into a state of war if the damaged party is denied restitution through the law.
The argument flows from liberty to have recourse to lawful restoration (in this case for the repair of the concrete curb) onto the protection of life itself. This flow John Locke develops completely for all to perceive and no longer be ignorant. First we start with liberty:
“Sec.17. And hence it is, that he who attempts to get another man into his absolute power, does thereby put himself into a state of war with him; it being to be understood as a declaration of a design upon his life: for I have reason to conclude, that he who would get me into his power without my consent, would use me as he pleased when he had got me there, and destroy me too when he had a fancy to it; for no body can desire to have me in his absolute power, unless it be to compel me by force to that which is against the right of my freedom, i.e. make me a slave. To be free from such force is the only security of my preservation; and reason bids me look on him, as an enemy to my preservation, who would take away that freedom which is the fence to it; so that he who makes an attempt to enslave me, thereby puts himself into a state of war with me. He that, in the state of nature, would take away the freedom that belongs to any one in that state, must necessarily be supposed to have a design to take away every thing else, the freedom being the foundation of all the rest; As he that in the state of society, would take away the freedom belonging to those of that society or commonwealth, must be supposed to design to take away from them every thing else, and so be looked on as in a state of war.”[2]
It is plain now to see that a denial of liberty is an attack upon all the property of the innocent consisting of his life, liberty and all other possessions of every type.
That which now only appears to be a minor invasion of property can later turn into a terrible state of war by the denial of lawful restoration to the innocent party.
“nay, where an appeal to the law, and constituted judges, lies open, but the remedy is denied by a manifest perverting of justice, and a barefaced wresting of the laws to protect or indemnify the violence or injuries of some men, or party of men, there it is hard to imagine any thing but a state of war: for wherever violence is used, and injury done, though by hands appointed to administer justice, it is still violence and injury, however coloured with the name, pretences, or forms of law, the end whereof being to protect and redress the innocent, by an unbiassed application of it, to all who are under it; wherever that is not bona fide done, war is made upon the sufferers, who having no appeal on earth to right them, they are left to the only remedy in such cases, an appeal to heaven.”[3]
Therefore, an innocent party denied restoration by the pretenses and forms of statutes like the “Texas Tort Claims Act” and the “Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code” for damages done by a government entity, a state of war is commenced and continued against the innocent.
Locke is not slack in his belligerent insistence upon the right of men to demand that there first be a lawful court and then that it exercise its lawful authority to check the injustices of the legislature and the executives when they invade the property of the citizens. He also determines the result of a court that cheats the petitioner out of his property rights in favor of government entities and servants that invade those rights.
“should either the executive, or the legislative, when they have got the power in their hands, design, or go about to enslave or destroy them. The people have no other remedy in this, as in all other cases where they have no judge on earth, but to appeal to heaven: for the rulers, in such attempts, exercising a power the people never put into their hands, (who can never be supposed to consent that any body should rule over them for their harm) do that which they have not a right to do. And where the body of the people, or any single man, is deprived of their right, or is under the exercise of a power without right, and have no appeal on earth, then they have a liberty to appeal to heaven, whenever they judge the cause of sufficient moment. And therefore, though the people cannot be judge, so as to have, by the constitution of that society, any superior power, to determine and give effective sentence in the case; yet they have, by a law antecedent and paramount to all positive laws of men, reserved that ultimate determination to themselves which belongs to all mankind, where there lies no appeal on earth, viz. to judge, whether they have just cause to make their appeal to heaven. And this judgment they cannot part with, it being out of a man's power so to submit himself to another, as to give him a liberty to destroy him; God and nature never allowing a man so to abandon himself, as to neglect his own preservation: and since he cannot take away his own life, neither can he give another power to take it. Nor let any one think, this lays a perpetual foundation for disorder; for this operates not, till the inconvenience is so great, that the majority feel it, and are weary of it, and find a necessity to have it amended. But this the executive power, or wise princes, never need come in the danger of: and ‘tis the thing, of all others, they have most need to avoid, as of all others the most perilous.”[4]
Some do not fear when they read or hear something like this but the Plaintiff has seen and been involved with this very phenomenon and it is frightening and astonishing for God does indeed operate an appeals court and he does intervene on earth on behalf of appellants deprived of justice upon earth. It is an awful thing to fall into the hands of God. For even if the majority of men do not pursue the justice that Christ has established on the earth through his Son Jesus Christ to correct government, He can and sometimes will intervene personally on behalf of those he so chooses.
|
Respectfully submitted, _______________________________________ Ronald F. Avery Pro Se 1955 830/372-5534 |
Certificate of Service
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing was forwarded by certified mail, return receipt requested # 7099 3220 0001 5083 3356, on this the ____ day of ___________, 2004 to the following:
Attorney of Record for Defendants:
William S. Helfand
Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Smith
Attorneys at Law
___________________________