Preview
1 :Mark-Douglas: Stokes
One of the People of Texas
2 :Melinda-Kay: Stokes
One of the People of Texas
3 5317 Rustic Trail
Colleyville, Texas [76034]
4 -i
IN THE 96th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT CO~Y ~ :::;
5 STATE OF TEXAS ~ 3:: ~ ~;
-i )> rrJ ~;~"
6 Plaintiffs )
~(f)
C')
("")
• I
>•··
;,.,e:_!
) -i J:> r
I.D 'f-.- - l
7 Mark Douglas Stokes and
n· c;rrl
) ~::;··.: §; ~0
8 Melinda Kay Stokes ) Cause # 096-246~~~0 -;:- -~
) c c.n -i
9 Vs )
r:! c.n -<
)
10 Michael W. Perry, and/or his successor,
individually, and in his official capacity as )
11 CEO oflNDYMAC MORTGAGE )
SERVICES, an ens legis being used to )
12 conceal fraud, )
)
13 Terry Laughlin, and/or his successor, ) 2"d WRIT OF ERROR
individually, and in his official capacity as ) QUAE CORAM
14 President & CEO of ONEWEST BANK, ) NOBIS RESIDENT
an ens legis being used to conceal fraud,
15 )
)
16 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST )
COMPANY, eta!, an ens legis being )
17 used to conceal fraud (trustee unknown at )
this time),
)
18
Brendetta A. Scott, and/or their )
19 successors, individually, and in their )
official capacities as officers of HUGHES, )
20 WATTERS, & ASKANASE, L.L.P an ens )
legis being used to conceal fraud, and )
21 unnamed John Does 1-10,000
)
)
22 Defendants )
23
THE COURT COMES NOW to review the facts, record, and process resulting in the
24
rulings dated October 8, 2010 and Defendant's Motion to Strike of November 16,2010.
25
The record shows that counsel for Defendant, Cheryl R. Worley, Esq., elected to submit
26
Defendant's motion to strike the Court's Writ of Error dated Nov. 11,2010. Said Writ of Error
27
28 !\lark Douglas Stokes and Melinda Kay Stokes v (Deutsche Bank. lndyMac. One \Vest et al)
1
1 is not a motion by Plaintiff, therefore Defendant's motion to strike is improper, and an error.
2 Defendant's motion to strike the Court's Writ of Error cites a void order by Magistrate Bleil,
3 that was addressed in said first Writ of Error. The court rescinded all rulings entered October 8,
4 2010, and stated as follows: "The Magistrate's Order to grant Defendants Special Exceptions is
5 a peijury of his oath to be fair and impartial, is in violation of rule 23 7A and of the law at 18
6 USC § 4; is unconstitutional, and in contempt of the law, thus, said order granting Defendant's
7 'Special Exceptions' request is rescinded and revoked." Defendant's motion failed to deny any
8 of the above stated facts, and therefore, admitted said facts.
9 Further, the Record shows that the Defendant, after notice and opportunity,
10 failed/declined to respond to the Court's Writ of Error, and, therefore agreed to everything
11 contained in the Court issued Writ of Error.
12 Further, on September 10,2010, the Court on its own motion made a Findings of Fact.
13 Defendant and the magistrate made no objection to said Findings of Fact, therefore, all
14 statements in said Findings of Fact were admitted by both the magistrate and the Defendant.
15 Further, on September 10, 2010, the Court took Judicial Notice of 23 statements
16 regarding, inter alia, the status of plaintiffs (as being among the sovereign people of Texas) and
17 the operation of the court as a court of record. Said statements were not denied by the
18 magistrate or the Defendant's legal counsel, therefore all statements in said Judicial Notice are
19 also admitted.
20 Both the Defendant and the Magistrate for the Court failed to respond to, or to deny any
21 of the statements and rulings contained in the first WRIT OF ERROR. The court finds that the
22 effect of Defendant's and Magistrate's failure to respond to and failure to deny is consent. Thus,
23 the Defendant and Magistrate have consented to, admitted to, the findings and ruling referenced
24 above.
25
26
27 1
2"' Writ of Error 12/08/10 Stokes and Stokes v (Deutsche Bank. lndyl\1ac. Onc\Vest et al)
28 2
1 The court finds, therefore, that the Defendant and Magistrate have admitted to the
2 statements contained within the first WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDENT,
3 and the Defendant and Magistrate grant, and agree to all aforesaid statements and rulings.
4 The genius of a court of record is not to be undermined. It is the birthright of every
5 American to settle issues in a court of record, if he so chooses.
6 The record of this case shows that the rules of the court were not followed, that the
7 magistrate attempted to function as a tribunal, and that the court was ineffective in furthering
8 the goal of justice for all. These failures to follow the prescribed procedures are sufficiently
9 disruptive to the goal of providing fair justice that the court finds it necessary to issue a writ of
10 error quae coram nobis residant as follows:
11 THE COURT, HAVING REVIEWED THE FACTS, THE RECORD, AND HAVING
12 FOUND NO RESPONSE FROM Magistrate Bliel, and having found no response from
13 Defendant to the WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT,
14 And, desiring that fair justice be served for all parties, defendant as well as plaintiff,
15 NOW THEREFORE, THE COURT issues this SECOND WRIT OF ERROR QUAE
16 CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT, to wit:
17 Defendant's motion to Strike the Court's Writ of Error is DENIED,
18 Further, Notice was issued to both said magistrate and legal counsel for the Defendant
19 and was their invitation to respond to the first WRIT OR ERROR. By not responding the
20 magistrate has admitted to not being a magistrate; has admitted that all orders issued by him are
21 void, and are revoked and rescinded. Further, after notice and opportunity to prove up his
22 credentials with a properly, timely filed oath as required by the Texas Constitution, and, having
23 failed to do so, Magistrate Bleil has admitted to not having a properly and timely filed anti-
24 bribery oath on file with the Secretary of State. This fact was confirmed by phone and fax from
25 the Secretary of State's office on or about December 03. 2010. Therefore, the magistrate's
26 ruling(s) of October 8, 2010 are void, and revocation of said rulings by the court is confirmed.
27
2'" 1 \\'rit of Error
12/08/10 Stokes and Stokes v (Deutsche I3ank. Indy Mac. One \Vest eta!)
28 3
1 Further, a Case Management Conference will be scheduled for a date determined by the
2 clerk, no later than January 7, 2011, unless for good cause.
3
4 .·' ··;
:THECOURT·•· .. ··
5 WITNESS: the SEAL of the
COURT this 9th day ofDecember, 2010
6
~,)rrtl(~-~~~l ~
7
8 :Melinda-Kay: Stokes
Attomatus Privatus
9
10
.z~;W-J!~:~
Y~ :Mark-Douglas: Stokes
11
Attomatus Privatus
12
13
14
Certificate of Mailing
15
16 I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing 2"d WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS
RESIDANT was this _ _th day of December 2010 provided to:
17
Cheryl Worley
18
c/o Hughes, Watters & Askanase, L.L.P.
19 333 Clay, Suite 2900
Houston, TX 77002
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
2'" 1 \\'rit of Error
12/0R/1 0 Stokes and Stokes v (Deutsche Bank. lndyl\1ac. One \Vest eta!)
28 4
I State ofTexas )
) ss. JURAT
2
County ofTarrant )
3
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before m
4 as to the matters set forth herein, by :Mark-Douglas:
5
6 SHERRY ROE
NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC
7 STATE OF TEXAS
COMMISSION EXPIRES
My Commission Expires: JULY 8, 2011
8
9
10
II
I2
13
I4
I5
I6
I7
I8
I9
20
2I
22
23
24
25
26
27
2"d Writ of Error 12/08/10 Stokes and Stokes v (Deutsche Rank, Indy Mac. One \Vest ct al)
28 5
Preview
1 :Mark-Douglas: Stokes One of the People of Texas 2 :Melinda-Kay: Stokes One of the People of Texas 3 5317 Rustic Trail Colleyville, Texas [76034] 4 -i IN THE 96th JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT OF TARRANT CO~Y ~ :::; 5 STATE OF TEXAS ~ 3:: ~ ~; -i )> rrJ ~;~" 6 Plaintiffs ) ~(f) C') ("") • I >•·· ;,.,e:_! ) -i J:> r I.D 'f-.- - l 7 Mark Douglas Stokes and n· c;rrl ) ~::;··.: §; ~0 8 Melinda Kay Stokes ) Cause # 096-246~~~0 -;:- -~ ) c c.n -i 9 Vs ) r:! c.n -< ) 10 Michael W. Perry, and/or his successor, individually, and in his official capacity as ) 11 CEO oflNDYMAC MORTGAGE ) SERVICES, an ens legis being used to ) 12 conceal fraud, ) ) 13 Terry Laughlin, and/or his successor, ) 2"d WRIT OF ERROR individually, and in his official capacity as ) QUAE CORAM 14 President & CEO of ONEWEST BANK, ) NOBIS RESIDENT an ens legis being used to conceal fraud, 15 ) ) 16 DEUTSCHE BANK NATIONAL TRUST ) COMPANY, eta!, an ens legis being ) 17 used to conceal fraud (trustee unknown at ) this time), ) 18 Brendetta A. Scott, and/or their ) 19 successors, individually, and in their ) official capacities as officers of HUGHES, ) 20 WATTERS, & ASKANASE, L.L.P an ens ) legis being used to conceal fraud, and ) 21 unnamed John Does 1-10,000 ) ) 22 Defendants ) 23 THE COURT COMES NOW to review the facts, record, and process resulting in the 24 rulings dated October 8, 2010 and Defendant's Motion to Strike of November 16,2010. 25 The record shows that counsel for Defendant, Cheryl R. Worley, Esq., elected to submit 26 Defendant's motion to strike the Court's Writ of Error dated Nov. 11,2010. Said Writ of Error 27 28 !\lark Douglas Stokes and Melinda Kay Stokes v (Deutsche Bank. lndyMac. One \Vest et al) 1 1 is not a motion by Plaintiff, therefore Defendant's motion to strike is improper, and an error. 2 Defendant's motion to strike the Court's Writ of Error cites a void order by Magistrate Bleil, 3 that was addressed in said first Writ of Error. The court rescinded all rulings entered October 8, 4 2010, and stated as follows: "The Magistrate's Order to grant Defendants Special Exceptions is 5 a peijury of his oath to be fair and impartial, is in violation of rule 23 7A and of the law at 18 6 USC § 4; is unconstitutional, and in contempt of the law, thus, said order granting Defendant's 7 'Special Exceptions' request is rescinded and revoked." Defendant's motion failed to deny any 8 of the above stated facts, and therefore, admitted said facts. 9 Further, the Record shows that the Defendant, after notice and opportunity, 10 failed/declined to respond to the Court's Writ of Error, and, therefore agreed to everything 11 contained in the Court issued Writ of Error. 12 Further, on September 10,2010, the Court on its own motion made a Findings of Fact. 13 Defendant and the magistrate made no objection to said Findings of Fact, therefore, all 14 statements in said Findings of Fact were admitted by both the magistrate and the Defendant. 15 Further, on September 10, 2010, the Court took Judicial Notice of 23 statements 16 regarding, inter alia, the status of plaintiffs (as being among the sovereign people of Texas) and 17 the operation of the court as a court of record. Said statements were not denied by the 18 magistrate or the Defendant's legal counsel, therefore all statements in said Judicial Notice are 19 also admitted. 20 Both the Defendant and the Magistrate for the Court failed to respond to, or to deny any 21 of the statements and rulings contained in the first WRIT OF ERROR. The court finds that the 22 effect of Defendant's and Magistrate's failure to respond to and failure to deny is consent. Thus, 23 the Defendant and Magistrate have consented to, admitted to, the findings and ruling referenced 24 above. 25 26 27 1 2"' Writ of Error 12/08/10 Stokes and Stokes v (Deutsche Bank. lndyl\1ac. Onc\Vest et al) 28 2 1 The court finds, therefore, that the Defendant and Magistrate have admitted to the 2 statements contained within the first WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDENT, 3 and the Defendant and Magistrate grant, and agree to all aforesaid statements and rulings. 4 The genius of a court of record is not to be undermined. It is the birthright of every 5 American to settle issues in a court of record, if he so chooses. 6 The record of this case shows that the rules of the court were not followed, that the 7 magistrate attempted to function as a tribunal, and that the court was ineffective in furthering 8 the goal of justice for all. These failures to follow the prescribed procedures are sufficiently 9 disruptive to the goal of providing fair justice that the court finds it necessary to issue a writ of 10 error quae coram nobis residant as follows: 11 THE COURT, HAVING REVIEWED THE FACTS, THE RECORD, AND HAVING 12 FOUND NO RESPONSE FROM Magistrate Bliel, and having found no response from 13 Defendant to the WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT, 14 And, desiring that fair justice be served for all parties, defendant as well as plaintiff, 15 NOW THEREFORE, THE COURT issues this SECOND WRIT OF ERROR QUAE 16 CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT, to wit: 17 Defendant's motion to Strike the Court's Writ of Error is DENIED, 18 Further, Notice was issued to both said magistrate and legal counsel for the Defendant 19 and was their invitation to respond to the first WRIT OR ERROR. By not responding the 20 magistrate has admitted to not being a magistrate; has admitted that all orders issued by him are 21 void, and are revoked and rescinded. Further, after notice and opportunity to prove up his 22 credentials with a properly, timely filed oath as required by the Texas Constitution, and, having 23 failed to do so, Magistrate Bleil has admitted to not having a properly and timely filed anti- 24 bribery oath on file with the Secretary of State. This fact was confirmed by phone and fax from 25 the Secretary of State's office on or about December 03. 2010. Therefore, the magistrate's 26 ruling(s) of October 8, 2010 are void, and revocation of said rulings by the court is confirmed. 27 2'" 1 \\'rit of Error 12/08/10 Stokes and Stokes v (Deutsche I3ank. Indy Mac. One \Vest eta!) 28 3 1 Further, a Case Management Conference will be scheduled for a date determined by the 2 clerk, no later than January 7, 2011, unless for good cause. 3 4 .·' ··; :THECOURT·•· .. ·· 5 WITNESS: the SEAL of the COURT this 9th day ofDecember, 2010 6 ~,)rrtl(~-~~~l ~ 7 8 :Melinda-Kay: Stokes Attomatus Privatus 9 10 .z~;W-J!~:~ Y~ :Mark-Douglas: Stokes 11 Attomatus Privatus 12 13 14 Certificate of Mailing 15 16 I CERTIFY that a copy of the foregoing 2"d WRIT OF ERROR QUAE CORAM NOBIS RESIDANT was this _ _th day of December 2010 provided to: 17 Cheryl Worley 18 c/o Hughes, Watters & Askanase, L.L.P. 19 333 Clay, Suite 2900 Houston, TX 77002 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 2'" 1 \\'rit of Error 12/0R/1 0 Stokes and Stokes v (Deutsche Bank. lndyl\1ac. One \Vest eta!) 28 4 I State ofTexas ) ) ss. JURAT 2 County ofTarrant ) 3 SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before m 4 as to the matters set forth herein, by :Mark-Douglas: 5 6 SHERRY ROE NOTARY PUBLIC NOTARY PUBLIC 7 STATE OF TEXAS COMMISSION EXPIRES My Commission Expires: JULY 8, 2011 8 9 10 II I2 13 I4 I5 I6 I7 I8 I9 20 2I 22 23 24 25 26 27 2"d Writ of Error 12/08/10 Stokes and Stokes v (Deutsche Rank, Indy Mac. One \Vest ct al) 28 5