No. 04-0499-CV
Ronald F. Avery |
* * |
In the District Court |
Vs. |
* |
|
William E. West Jr.; David Welsch |
* * * * * |
25th Judicial District |
Plaintiff’s Response to
Defendants’ Special Exceptions
TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
Now comes the Plaintiff, Ronald F. Avery, with his Response to Defendants’ Motion for Special Exceptions and would show this court that Defendants’ Order Granting said motion should be denied.
The Plaintiff objects to the Defendants’ insistence upon the Plaintiff placing his cause of action into the unlawful statutory and remedial mold of the Civil Practice and Remedy Code (CPRC) on the following grounds
1.1.
State
Sovereign Immunity is Unlawful
The CPRC is unconstitutional and unlawful because it is
constructed against the great end of civil government in
1.2.
Other
theories of recovery apply
The Plaintiff objects to the granting of Special Exceptions that would require the Plaintiff to commit his causes to the strict and arbitrary rules of the CPRC in denial of any other theory of recovery available in at least the two areas of Due Process and Equal Rights violations.
1.3.
Plaintiff
Objects to Dismissal if cannot plead within waiver of immunity under CPRC
Plaintiff objects to Defendants’ Order to Grant Motion for Special Exceptions that would require the Plaintiff to plead his theory of recovery only under the Texas Tort Claims Act and the CPRC.
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure (TRCP #1) requires the court to seek substantive law beyond that of mere statutory and remedy law in the Texas Tort Claims Act and the Texas Civil Practice and Remedy Code. (see Plaintiff’s Brief on Jurisdiction attached). Also see Plaintiff’s Brief on Perversion of Justice attached.
Plaintiff does not object however to filing his First Amended Original Petition conforming to the following:
3.1.
TRCP
50
The amended petition will have all paragraphs numbered with headings identifying the count, or issue raised.
3.2.
Plaintiff
will be more specific on the theory of recovery
Plaintiff will plead any existing statutory and remedial law available and applicable and the required substantive laws of reason as they apply to his causes of action that show a good faith ground for reversal of existing remedial and case law.
Plaintiff objects to the granting of motion for Special Exceptions that ask for striking and dismissal and conformity to only one set of remedial law prior to a re-pleading by Plaintiff. Plaintiff further objects to being summarily thrown out of court prior to more discovery as to the issues he has already raised that may give rise to further and more accurate pleading of fact and law.
THEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff prays that this Court deny the Defendants’ Order and Motion for Special Exceptions and allow the Plaintiff to file his First Amended Original Petition conforming to TRCP #1 and #50 within twenty one (21) days of this hearing on Special Exceptions.
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
__________________________________