Preview
FILED
8/18/2023 9:50 AM
FELICIA PITRE
DISTRICT CLERK
DALLAS CO., TEXAS
Terri Kilgore DEPUTY
CAUSE NO. DC-23-06718
JAMES WEBSTER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
P1aintiff(s), §
v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AMANDA CARRIZALES §
Defendant (s), § 44m JUDICIAL DISTRICT
MOTION TO COUNTER STRIKE
THE PLAINTIFF’S TWO SANCTIONS
The defendant and Pro Se Amanda Carrizales in this case, DC-23-06718, opposes and
counterstrikes the Motion to Strike and Sanction and the Second Motion to Strike and Sanction
filed by the plaintiff and lead attorney, James Webster.
My opposition is based upon these points and truths, any exhibits, filings, and arguments
of court.
Points. Truths, and Arguments of this Counterstrike
I oppose and counterstrike the motions of sanctions on file with court for the following
reasons.
Motion to Strike and Sanction by plaintiff
1. Each motion entered to court by the defendant was not intended to delay these legal proceedings,
be considered harassment to any party, nor be groundless pleadings.
A. The motion
to move venue and jurisdiction was to move the court case to its proper
jurisdiction and venue. The details of why the case should be moved to Denton or Collin
County are accurate and true: the contract was signed by the parties in Denton County for a Collin
County court case of divorce, the events happened in Collin County court, the plaintiff lives and
works in Collin, and defendants' main residence is Denton County.
Additionally, the only two mistakes the defendant figures that She thinks She also titled it
wrong. The last issue was her failure to have it properly notarized as she couldn’t find a
notary in time.
In response to her move the jurisdiction and venue the attorney and plaintiff, James
Webster, put in an agreement in his very last statement on his response to his motion to
move to the correct county of Denton. He also responded in kind by email that he would
agree to move it too and the reasons he agreed. The attorney also claimed the courts would
approve the defendant’s motions to move venue.
As a result,the parties conferred, Amanda Carrizales has been listening but staying quiet
for good reasons in her defense against this attorney. Amanda Carrizales would not have
put the motion to move venue and jurisdiction in the first place if she did not agree to
moving the case in the first place. Thereby, the resulting agreement was the certificate of
conference, the dates to request for a hearing for the motion to move jurisdiction and venue,
and burden of proof the plaintiff agreed by email to Amanda Carrizales and thus conferred.
2.The motion to dismiss the case upon learning the factual possibility finding the debt
collection agency. The fact the debt collection agency was causing undue defamation of
her credit, and information that the debt collection agency may be the new owners of the
debt than the plaintiff James Webster meant that the plaintiff no longer owned the debt,
and the case should be dismissed for the right owners to sue. Attorney James webster
answered by email in kind of his defense to Amanda Carrizales, defendant of the case.
3. The allegations that the defendant is making these motions to delay the lawsuit and delay
his payment are denied by the defendant. In fact, the defendant asks for an itemized
statement of how she owes the plaintiff 1000.00 already for motions or emails that were to
defend the plaintiff. In fact, each motion that the defendant or plaintiff puts in, the
defendant must research the motion to give hopefully the appropriate response and why
she was asking for a court adviser for pro se litigants to be created to avoid any issues like
these sanctions. Each research took up her time and has delayed her amended answer,
affirmative, and the other issue she is writing of her counter claim, if the opposing counsel
needs her Answer, please stop wasting courts and the defendants time with sanctions and
strikes and hearings on such strikes and sanctions and allow said defendant to finish writing
it than researching additional motions. If a third sanction after this counterstrike, Amanda
Carrizales will wait for the court's decision on that opinion. The defendant prays the court
deny his current fees in his sanction at the end of the case.
Amanda Carrizales is here to rightfully defend herself on why the plaintiff and attorney
should not deserve the debt amount the plaintiff is claiming to be owed to him by the
defenses and pleadings of her side of this case, not allow him a instant win by default
judgement.
4. The defendant denies the allegations of a default judgment as that is what the plaintiff
intends for the court to do so that the plaintiff can automatically win without the courts
listening to the defendants' defenses. The defendant answered the court to prevent the
default judgement and the courts responded by canceling the status hearing. The defendant
asks the court to please put aside his motion in his sanction for a default judgement and
deny it.
6. Regarding the exhibits, they are not doctored. Amanda Carrizales lacks the appropriate
materials or app that allows attorneys, etc., to combine pdfs appropriately for court. What
Amanda Carrizales presented was the true emails that attorney James Webster was sending
her in this lawsuit, and she was doing her best to present the evidence to court only in the
manner she knew how: by giving the courts the true emails she received in appropriate
exhibit presentation she learned by observation example.
7. James Webster is NOT her attorney in this matter and keeps emailing her like he is in
this case. She, as defendant, can listen and not respond. As Pro Se and opposing party
represent the rules about responding to Pro Se to the plaintiff Attorney the rules have not
been read yet and are unclear especially when she is trying to mitigate costs like in her
divorce case.
8. Per documents online and in other legal resources, sanctions are supposed to be filed as
separate motions from any other motions such as strikes. This is What she found out
reading about sanctions to try and respond appropriately to these two sanctions. It does
not state if responses are to be the same, separate or together for two or more sanctions
nor has the defendant found examples of such an event. The defendant found this
information about sanctions on online definitions, the American Bar Association, and
encyclopedias under motions or sanctions. The motions of strikes used by the plaintiff
per that information was not to be used in a sanction per legal law research by the
defendant.
9, Amanda Carrizales has never stated she was an attorney and is confused by what the
plaintiff is implying in his second motion of sanction and strike. She understands she is
pro se and representing herself at this current time, and the plaintiff is representing
himself in this case, too. The defendant hopes by presenting her defense that the courts
will understand why there is a lack of direct email communication from Amanda
Carrizales to Attorney James Webster in this case.
10. Amanda Carrizales did state her accurate and true financials in her notarized
statement of inability to pay court costs.
Prayer
The defendant prays that the motions of strikes and sanctions and attorney fees for
this lawsuit and the default judgement of the plaintiff are not approved, and that relief be
granted to the defendant to continue her defenses for this case if staying in Dallas County
or her motions to dismiss and transfer counties an approved. The defendant prays she is
not in trouble with court by her current motions and pleadings thus far and apologizes if
she is. She just wants to defend her case in the rightful way to the best of her ability and go
home to her children and finish raising her kids with no more legal interruptions. This is
her first sanction as she never heard of sanctions before now and hopefully prays to the
court that she responded to this sanction correctly.
For these reasons the courts should deny the motions to strike and sanctions by the
plaintiff on this day August l7, 2023.
In best relief of these sanctions,
Amanda Carrizales
Pro Se
akcarrizales82@vahoo.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that all parties have received a copy of this motion by E-file and serve.
Amanda Carrizales, Pro Se
akcarrizale582@yahoo.com
CAUSE NO. DC-23-06718
JAMES WEBSTER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff (s), §
v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AMANDA CARRIZALES §
Defendant (s), § 44m JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER TO APPROVE COUNTER STRIKE AND OPPOSE
THE PLAINTIFF’S TWO SANCTIONS BY THE DEFENDANT
On this day of in the month of in the year of have
adjudged and decreed that this Order to Approve the Counter Strike of the Sanctions be
(approved, denied) in the 44th District Court of Dallas County.
Judge Presiding
CAUSE NO. DC-23-06718
JAMES WEBSTER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT
Plaintiff (s), §
v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
AMANDA CARRIZALES §
Defendant (s), § 44m JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ORDER TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND JURISDICTION
On this day of in the month of in the year of have
adjudged and decreed that this Order to Approve the Motion to Change Venue and Jurisdiction
(approved, denied) in the 44th District Court of Dallas County.
Judge Presiding
Automated Certificate of eService
This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.
The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system
on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing
certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a
certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.
Envelope ID: 78672455
Filing Code Description: Motion - Strike
Filing Description: COUNTER STRIKE THE PLAINTIFF'S TWO
SANCTIONS
Status as of 8/18/2023 2:41 PM CST
Associated Case Party: JAMES WEBSTER
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
James Webster jim@websterlaw.net 8/18/2023 9:50:50 AM SENT
Associated Case Party: AMANDA CARRIZALES
Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status
Amanda Carrizales akcarrizale582@yahoo.com 8/18/2023 9:50:50 AM SENT
Preview
FILED 8/18/2023 9:50 AM FELICIA PITRE DISTRICT CLERK DALLAS CO., TEXAS Terri Kilgore DEPUTY CAUSE NO. DC-23-06718 JAMES WEBSTER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT P1aintiff(s), § v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AMANDA CARRIZALES § Defendant (s), § 44m JUDICIAL DISTRICT MOTION TO COUNTER STRIKE THE PLAINTIFF’S TWO SANCTIONS The defendant and Pro Se Amanda Carrizales in this case, DC-23-06718, opposes and counterstrikes the Motion to Strike and Sanction and the Second Motion to Strike and Sanction filed by the plaintiff and lead attorney, James Webster. My opposition is based upon these points and truths, any exhibits, filings, and arguments of court. Points. Truths, and Arguments of this Counterstrike I oppose and counterstrike the motions of sanctions on file with court for the following reasons. Motion to Strike and Sanction by plaintiff 1. Each motion entered to court by the defendant was not intended to delay these legal proceedings, be considered harassment to any party, nor be groundless pleadings. A. The motion to move venue and jurisdiction was to move the court case to its proper jurisdiction and venue. The details of why the case should be moved to Denton or Collin County are accurate and true: the contract was signed by the parties in Denton County for a Collin County court case of divorce, the events happened in Collin County court, the plaintiff lives and works in Collin, and defendants' main residence is Denton County. Additionally, the only two mistakes the defendant figures that She thinks She also titled it wrong. The last issue was her failure to have it properly notarized as she couldn’t find a notary in time. In response to her move the jurisdiction and venue the attorney and plaintiff, James Webster, put in an agreement in his very last statement on his response to his motion to move to the correct county of Denton. He also responded in kind by email that he would agree to move it too and the reasons he agreed. The attorney also claimed the courts would approve the defendant’s motions to move venue. As a result,the parties conferred, Amanda Carrizales has been listening but staying quiet for good reasons in her defense against this attorney. Amanda Carrizales would not have put the motion to move venue and jurisdiction in the first place if she did not agree to moving the case in the first place. Thereby, the resulting agreement was the certificate of conference, the dates to request for a hearing for the motion to move jurisdiction and venue, and burden of proof the plaintiff agreed by email to Amanda Carrizales and thus conferred. 2.The motion to dismiss the case upon learning the factual possibility finding the debt collection agency. The fact the debt collection agency was causing undue defamation of her credit, and information that the debt collection agency may be the new owners of the debt than the plaintiff James Webster meant that the plaintiff no longer owned the debt, and the case should be dismissed for the right owners to sue. Attorney James webster answered by email in kind of his defense to Amanda Carrizales, defendant of the case. 3. The allegations that the defendant is making these motions to delay the lawsuit and delay his payment are denied by the defendant. In fact, the defendant asks for an itemized statement of how she owes the plaintiff 1000.00 already for motions or emails that were to defend the plaintiff. In fact, each motion that the defendant or plaintiff puts in, the defendant must research the motion to give hopefully the appropriate response and why she was asking for a court adviser for pro se litigants to be created to avoid any issues like these sanctions. Each research took up her time and has delayed her amended answer, affirmative, and the other issue she is writing of her counter claim, if the opposing counsel needs her Answer, please stop wasting courts and the defendants time with sanctions and strikes and hearings on such strikes and sanctions and allow said defendant to finish writing it than researching additional motions. If a third sanction after this counterstrike, Amanda Carrizales will wait for the court's decision on that opinion. The defendant prays the court deny his current fees in his sanction at the end of the case. Amanda Carrizales is here to rightfully defend herself on why the plaintiff and attorney should not deserve the debt amount the plaintiff is claiming to be owed to him by the defenses and pleadings of her side of this case, not allow him a instant win by default judgement. 4. The defendant denies the allegations of a default judgment as that is what the plaintiff intends for the court to do so that the plaintiff can automatically win without the courts listening to the defendants' defenses. The defendant answered the court to prevent the default judgement and the courts responded by canceling the status hearing. The defendant asks the court to please put aside his motion in his sanction for a default judgement and deny it. 6. Regarding the exhibits, they are not doctored. Amanda Carrizales lacks the appropriate materials or app that allows attorneys, etc., to combine pdfs appropriately for court. What Amanda Carrizales presented was the true emails that attorney James Webster was sending her in this lawsuit, and she was doing her best to present the evidence to court only in the manner she knew how: by giving the courts the true emails she received in appropriate exhibit presentation she learned by observation example. 7. James Webster is NOT her attorney in this matter and keeps emailing her like he is in this case. She, as defendant, can listen and not respond. As Pro Se and opposing party represent the rules about responding to Pro Se to the plaintiff Attorney the rules have not been read yet and are unclear especially when she is trying to mitigate costs like in her divorce case. 8. Per documents online and in other legal resources, sanctions are supposed to be filed as separate motions from any other motions such as strikes. This is What she found out reading about sanctions to try and respond appropriately to these two sanctions. It does not state if responses are to be the same, separate or together for two or more sanctions nor has the defendant found examples of such an event. The defendant found this information about sanctions on online definitions, the American Bar Association, and encyclopedias under motions or sanctions. The motions of strikes used by the plaintiff per that information was not to be used in a sanction per legal law research by the defendant. 9, Amanda Carrizales has never stated she was an attorney and is confused by what the plaintiff is implying in his second motion of sanction and strike. She understands she is pro se and representing herself at this current time, and the plaintiff is representing himself in this case, too. The defendant hopes by presenting her defense that the courts will understand why there is a lack of direct email communication from Amanda Carrizales to Attorney James Webster in this case. 10. Amanda Carrizales did state her accurate and true financials in her notarized statement of inability to pay court costs. Prayer The defendant prays that the motions of strikes and sanctions and attorney fees for this lawsuit and the default judgement of the plaintiff are not approved, and that relief be granted to the defendant to continue her defenses for this case if staying in Dallas County or her motions to dismiss and transfer counties an approved. The defendant prays she is not in trouble with court by her current motions and pleadings thus far and apologizes if she is. She just wants to defend her case in the rightful way to the best of her ability and go home to her children and finish raising her kids with no more legal interruptions. This is her first sanction as she never heard of sanctions before now and hopefully prays to the court that she responded to this sanction correctly. For these reasons the courts should deny the motions to strike and sanctions by the plaintiff on this day August l7, 2023. In best relief of these sanctions, Amanda Carrizales Pro Se akcarrizales82@vahoo.com CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that all parties have received a copy of this motion by E-file and serve. Amanda Carrizales, Pro Se akcarrizale582@yahoo.com CAUSE NO. DC-23-06718 JAMES WEBSTER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff (s), § v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AMANDA CARRIZALES § Defendant (s), § 44m JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER TO APPROVE COUNTER STRIKE AND OPPOSE THE PLAINTIFF’S TWO SANCTIONS BY THE DEFENDANT On this day of in the month of in the year of have adjudged and decreed that this Order to Approve the Counter Strike of the Sanctions be (approved, denied) in the 44th District Court of Dallas County. Judge Presiding CAUSE NO. DC-23-06718 JAMES WEBSTER, § IN THE DISTRICT COURT Plaintiff (s), § v. § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS AMANDA CARRIZALES § Defendant (s), § 44m JUDICIAL DISTRICT ORDER TO APPROVE THE MOTION TO CHANGE VENUE AND JURISDICTION On this day of in the month of in the year of have adjudged and decreed that this Order to Approve the Motion to Change Venue and Jurisdiction (approved, denied) in the 44th District Court of Dallas County. Judge Presiding Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system. The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules. Envelope ID: 78672455 Filing Code Description: Motion - Strike Filing Description: COUNTER STRIKE THE PLAINTIFF'S TWO SANCTIONS Status as of 8/18/2023 2:41 PM CST Associated Case Party: JAMES WEBSTER Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status James Webster jim@websterlaw.net 8/18/2023 9:50:50 AM SENT Associated Case Party: AMANDA CARRIZALES Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Amanda Carrizales akcarrizale582@yahoo.com 8/18/2023 9:50:50 AM SENT