Preview
AFFIDAVIT BILITY
TO Pay
ORIGIN NOTICE OF TORT
FILED
Cause No. DC-\1 ov} $
QITAUG10 AH 947
SCOTT DAMON RICHARDSON § IN THE pIsTRICt COURT PIT
§ sc ER
§ iid woo gnBevES
oa Sry
§
DETRA HILL § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS
Chr “Mg / Lett; OY) COMPLAINT
Now comes Scott Damon Richardson, agent, hereinafter, Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff was
ordered to court for a hearing by public attorney Detra Hill of the Mesquite Municipal Court.
Plaintiff complied with court order and appeared before a non-judicial hearing. Detra Hill
proceeded with a hearing noncompliant with standing law. Derta Hill simulated a legal
proceeding ordering Plaintiff to trial. Detra Hill slandered and insulted Plaintiff to intimidate and
force a plea. Detra Hill’s Abuse of process denied Plaintiff Due process of law.
PARTIES
Plaintiff: Scott Damon Richardson Defendant: Detra Hill
Mesquite Municipal Court
317 e Daugherty Garland TX 75041
211 Municipal Way Mesquite TX 75149
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
Petitioner brings this civil action pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and invokes
the jurisdiction of this court. This County Court has jurisdiction over $500.00, Gov't Code
Sec. 24.007 JURISDICTION.!
STATEMENT OF FACTS
On July 18" 2016 Plaintiff was ordered to a Pre-Trial Hearing before public attorney
Detra Hill
During the hearing Plaintiff said, “I do not consent to the proceeding’
Attorney Detra Hill said “well you don’t have to consent these are the options. If you
don’t want to do a thing you’re free to go but. but a warrant will be issued for your
arrest
The Detra Hill turned towards the bailiff saying “look we have a Sovereign Citizen’
Plaintiff informed the public attorney “do not call me any names “I am an American’
Detra Hill said “Ok what do you want to do with your tickets sir
Plaintiff said “Set it for trial by jury under duress, change that to judge’
Detra Hill replied... “So a bench {rial”
Plaintiff said “yes under duress”.”
‘sec. 24.007 JURISDICTION (a) The district court has the jurisdiction provided by Article V,
Section 8 of the Texas Constitution (b) A district court has original jurisdiction of a civil
matter in which the amount in controversy is more than $500, exclusive of interest
Page 1 of 8
NOTICE OF TORT
10. Detra Hill denied Plaintiff Due process of law, an Abuse of Process, Abuse of Office and
Abuse of Official Capacity.*
ATTORNEY DETRA HILL OPERATING BEYOND SCOPE
On July 18" 2016 Plaintiff was ordered to court for a “pre-trial” hearing,‘ yet none of the courts
procedures were followed. This was not an Arraignment Hearing, Pleading, Exemptions,
> sec. 8.05. DURESS. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in
the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious
bodily injury to himself or another. (b) In a prosecution for an offense that does not
constitute a felony, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the
proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by force or threat of force. (ce) Compulsion
within the meaning of this section exists only if the force or threat of force would render a
person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure. (da) The defense provided by
this section is unavailable if the actor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed himself
in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to compulsion. (e) It is no
defense that a person acted at the command or persuasion of his spouse, unless he acted under
compulsion that would establish a defense under this section.
3sec. 39.02.ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with
intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or
knowingly: (1) violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or (2)
misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the
government that has come into the public servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public
servant's office or employment. (b} An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor.
(ce) An offense under Subsection (a) (2) is: (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the use of
the thing misused is less than $100; (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the use of the
thing misused is $100 or more but less than $750; (3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the
use of the thing misused is $750 or more but less than $2,500; (4) a state jail felony if the
value of the use of the thing misused is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000; (5) a felony of
the third degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $30,000 or more but less than
$150, 0007 (6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is
$150,000 or more but less than $300,000; or (7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the
use of the thing A discount or award given for travel, such
misused is $300,000 or more. (a) as
frequent flyer miles, rental car or hotel discounts, or food coupons, are not things of value
belonging to the government for purposes of this section due to the administrative difficulty and
cost involved in recapturing the discount or award for a governmental entity. (e) If separate
transactions that violate Subsection (a)(2) are conducted pursuant to one scheme or continuing
course of conduct, the conduct may be considered as one offense and the value of the use of the
things misused in the transactions may be aggregated in determining the classification of the
offense. (f£)The value of the use of a thing of value misused under Subsection (a) (2) may not
exceed: qa) the fair market value of the thing at the time of the offense; or (2) if the fair
market value of the thing cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the thing within a
reasonable time after the offense.
‘art. 28.01. PRE-TRIAL. Sec. 1 The court may set any criminal case for a pre-trial hearing
before it is set for trial upon its merits, and direct the defendant and his attorney, if any of
record, and the State's attorney, to appear before the court at the time and place stated in the
court's order for a conference and hearing. The defendant must be present at the arraignment,
and his presence is required during any pre-trial proceeding. The pre-trial hearing shail be to
determine any of the following matters: (1) Arraignment of the defendant, if such be necessary;
and appointment of counsel to represent the defendant, if such be necessary; (2) Pleadings of the
defendant; (3) Special pleas, if any; (4) Exceptions to the form or substance of the indictment
or information; (5) Motions for continuance either by the State or defendant; provided that
grounds for continuance not existing or not known at the time may be presented and considered at
any time before the defendant announces ready for trial; (6) Motions to suppress evidence--When a
hearing on the motion to suppress evidence is granted, the court may determine the merits of said
motion on the motions themselves, or upon opposing affidavits, or upon oral testimony, subject to
the discretion of the court; (7) Motions for change of venue by the State or the defendant;
provided, however, that such motions for change of venue, if overruled at the pre-trial hearing,
may be renewed by the State or the defendant during the voir dire examination of the jury; (8)
Discovery; (9) Entrapment; and (10) Motion for appointment of interpreter. Sec. 2. When a
criminal case is set for such pre-trial hearing, any such preliminary matters not raised or filed
seven days before the hearing will not thereafter be allowed to be raised or filed, except by
permission of the court for good cause shown; provided that the defendant shall have sufficient
Page 2 of 8
NOTICE OF TORT
Motions of continuance, suppression of evidence, change of venue, discovery, entrapment,
request for interpreter, or applicability of Sec 2 or 3 of this chapter.
FALSE IMPRISIONMENT ANALYSIS
To establish a claim for false imprisonment, a claimant must show: (1) willful detention, (2)
without consent, and (3) without authority of law. Bossin v. Towber, 894 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tex.
App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). A person who directs, requests, or participates in
the detention may be liable. Id.
1. False Imprisonment-count one, Public Attorney Detra Hill ordered Plaintiff to court then
denied a fair and impartial hearing Abuse of Official Capacity.
First element- Detra Hill was operating out of scope and simulating a legal process.
Second element- The denial of Due process by Detra Hill, a City of Mesquite employee was
intentional and unlawful. Said act violated 39.02 Abuse of Official Capacity because there was
no probably cause that a felony offense was committed.
Conclusion- Detra Hill and employer City of Mesquite are liable for false
stop/arrest/imprisonment for allowing practice/policies that violates 39.02 Abuse of Official
Capacity which caused Detra Hill to harm me and my liberties by false imprisonment of my
person.
ABUSE OF PROCESS ANALYSIS
We first turn to Plaintiff's abuse of process claim. The term "process" is defined as “[a]
summons or writ, esp. to appear or respond in court." Black's Law Dictionary 1010 (8th ed.
notice of such hearing to allow him not less than 10 days in which to raise or file such
preliminary matters. The record made at such pre-trial hearing, the rulings of the court and the
exceptions and objections thereto shall become a part of the trial record of the case upon its
merits. Sec. 3 The notice mentioned in Section 2 above shall be sufficient if given in any one
of the following ways: (1) By announcement made by the court in open court in the presence of the
defendant or his attorney of record; (2) By personal service upon the defendant or his attorney
of record; (3) By mail to either the defendant
or his attorney of record deposited by the clerk
in the mail at least six days prior to the date set for hearing. If the defendant has no
attorney of record such notice shall be addressed to defendant at the address shown on his bond,
if the bond shows such an address, and if not, it may be addressed to one of the sureties on his
bond. If the envelope containing the notice is properly addressed, stamped and mailed, the state
will not be required to show that it was received.
5 sec. 32.48 SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly
causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or
other court process with the intent to: qa) induce payment of a claim from another person; or
(2) cause another to: (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or (B) take any
action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the
document, or on the basis of the document. (b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person
with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the
document was delivered. (c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the
simulating document: (1) states that it is not legal process; or (2) purports to have been
issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful authority to issue or
authorize the document. (da) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that
the simulating document was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an
employee of a clerk of a court created or established under the constitution or laws of this
state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was delivered with the intent
described by Subsection (a). (e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this
section is a Class A misdemeanor. (f£) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this
section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section, the
offense is a state jail felony.
Page 3 of 8
NOTICE OF TORT
2005); See Martin v. Trevino, 578 S.W.2d 763, 769 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi_1978, writ
ref'd n.r.e.).
The elements of an abuse of process claim include (1) an illegal, improper, or perverted use of
process, neither warranted nor authorized by the process, (2) an ulterior motive or purpose in
exercising such use, and (3) damages as a result of the illegal act. Preston Gate, L.P. v. Bukaty,
248 S.W.3d 892, 897 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.).
In order to be an abuse, the process must have been used to accomplish an end which is beyond
the purview of the process and compels a party to do collateral things that he could not be
compelled to do. Id. The crucial aspect of this tort is the improper use of process after it has been
issued. Id.; Bossin v. Towber, 894 S.W.2d 25, 33 (Tex. Aj -Houston [14th Dist. 2000, pet.
denied).
In other words, the original issuance of process is justified, but the process is later used for an
unintended purpose. Id. When the process is used for the purpose for which it was intended,
even if accomplished through ulterior motive, no abuse of process has occurred. Id.; Baubles &
Beads v. Louis Vuitton, S.A. 766 S.W.2d 377, 379 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1989, no writ).
The "gist" of abuse of process as a tort does not involve commencing an action or causing
process to issue without justification. Blackstock v. Tatum, 396 S.W.2d 463, 468 (Tex. App.-
Houston [1st Dist.] 1965, no writ).
Rather, it involves misusing or misapplying process justified in itself for an end other than it was
intended to accomplish. Id. The purpose for which the process is used is the only thing of
importance. Id. If wrongful intent or malice caused the process to be issued initially, the claim is
instead one for malicious prosecution. Montemayor v. Ortiz, 208 $.W.3d 627, 650 (Tex. App.-
Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied).
Legal malice in this context means the conduct complained of must have been deliberate and
without reasonable cause. Duncan Land Expl., Inc. v. Littlepage, 984 S.W.2d_ 318, 332 (Tex
App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied).
Stated another way, the original issuance of process is justified, but the process itself is later
used for a purpose for which it was not intended. Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d_ 117, 130
(Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). When the process is used for the purpose for
which it was intended, even though accomplished by an ulterior motive, no abuse of process has
occurred. See id.
In other words, the original issuance of a legal precess is justified, but the process itself is
subsequently used for a purpose for which it was not intended. Martin, 578 S.W.2d at 769.
ABUSE OF PROCESS CLAIMS COUNTS ONE ~— SIX
Detra Hill a Mesquite public attorney denied Plaintiff Due process by simulating a legal
proceeding violating Rights of Accused.
First element Detra Hill a Mesquite public attorney insulted and defamed Plaintiff in order to
harass, intimidate, and embarrass me absent a valid charging instrument.
Second element Detra Hill a Mesquite City public attorney abuse of processes denied Plaintiff to
a judicial determination before a sitting judge, thereby denying Plaintiff the right to speak before
a magistrate.
Page 4 of 8
NOTICE OF TORT
1. Detra Hill is absent capacity and standing to bring a charge before this court. Due
process.
Detra Hill triggered a judicial process by simulating a legal proceeding. Due process.
3. Detra Hill is tampering with a government record® by fabricating evidence against the
accused. Due process.
Sec. 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. fa) A person commits an offense if he: (1)
knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record; (2) makes,
presents, or uses any record) document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent
that it be taken as a genuine governmental record; a) intentionally destroys, conceals,
removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record;
(4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record
form with intent that it be used unlawfully; (5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record
with knowledge of its falsity; or (6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record
or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully. (b) It is an
exception to the application of Subsection (a) (3) that the governmental record is destroyed
pursuant to legal authorization or transferred under Section 441.204, Government Code. With
regard to the destruction of a local government record, legal authorization includes compliance
with the provisions of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code. (ce) (1) Except as provided by
Subdivisions (2), (3), and (4) and by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A
misdemeanor unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense
is a state jail felony. (2) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it
is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was: (A) @ public school
record, report, or assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, data reported
for a school district or open-enrollment charter school to the Texas Education Agency through the
Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education
Code, under a law or rule requiring that reporting, or a license, certificate, permit, seal,
title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the
United States, unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the
offense is a felony of the second degree; (B) a written report of a medical, chemical,
toxicological, ballistic, or other expert examination or test performed on physical evidence for
the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action; (C)
a written report of the certification, inspection, or maintenance record of an instrument
apparatus, implement, machine, or other similar device used in the course of an examination or
test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of
the evidence to a criminal action; or (D) a search warrant issued by a magistrate. (3) An
offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense
that the governmental record is a governmental record that is required for enrollment of a
student in a school district and was used by the actor to establish the residency of the student.
(4) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the
offense that the governmental record is a written appraisal filed with an appraisal review board
under Section 41.43(a-1), Tax Code, that was performed by a person who had a contingency interest
in the outcome of the appraisal review board hearing. (d) An offense under this section, if it
is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by Section
37.01(2)(D), is: (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a) (2)
or Subsection (a) (5) and the defendant is convicted of presenting or using the record; (2) a
felony of the third degree if the offense is committed under: (A) Subsection (a) (1), G3), (Me
or (6); or (B) Subsection (a) (2) or (5) and the defendant is convicted of making the record;
and (3) a felony of the second degree, notwithstanding Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the actor's
intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another. fe) It is an affirmative
defense to prosecution for possession under Subsection (a) (6) that the possession occurred in the
actual discharge of official duties as a public servant. (£) It is a defense to prosecution
under Subsection (a) (1), (a) (2), o (a) (5) that the false entry or false information could have
no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record. (g) A person is
presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more of
the same type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and if each governmental
record or blank governmental record form is a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or
similar document issued by government. (hy) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this
section also constitutes an offense under Section 32.48 or 37.13, the actor may be prosecuted
under any of those sections. (i) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district
attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor
to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program. (j) It is
not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) (2) that the record, document, or thing made,
presented, or used displays or contains the statement "NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT" or another
substantially similar statement intended to alert a person to the falsity of the record,
document, or thing, unless the record, document, or thing displays the statement diagonally
Page 5 of 8
NOTICE OF TORT
Detra Hill ordered Plaintiff to sign a court document under duress to trigger a legal
process. Due process
Detra Hill denied Plaintiff's right to speak before a judicial officer violating the Rights of
Accused.’ Due process
Detra Hill violated her professional conduct.” Due process.
CONCLUSION
This act of city officers ordering individuals to court absent a proper hearing is the practice that
the City of Mesquite has allowed the Mesquite Municipal Court to employ against citizens in
Dallas County. Because the officer of the court used a common practice allowed by the City of
Mesquite to abuse process required in Art 16.01. City of Mesquite and Detra Hill are liable for
abuse of process, due to the violation that occurred to Plaintiff.
DAMAGES
WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff demands to be made whole:
(a.) Declaratory judgment for Plaintiff against Defendants, Detra Hill, their agents, agencies, and
the privateers for those agencies, and their marital relations, jointly and severally, where it
applies, for damages.
(b.) Declaratory judgment for Plaintiff against Defendants Detra Hill and their marital relations
where it applies, or, Punitive Damages;
To be determined By A Jury for no less than $50,000.00
(c.) Declaratory judgment for Plaintiff against Detra Hill operating under color of STATE law,
acting noncompliance with their own copyrighted codes, statutes, ordinances, outside their
jurisdiction and scope of authority, causing Plaintiff suffering and ongoing damages alleged
herein.
(d.) Declaratory judgment for Plaintiff against Detra Hill and their agents, agencies, and the
privateers for those agencies, for, the multiple accounts of fraud perpetrated against Plaintiff
by Detra Hill their agents, agencies, and the privateers for those agencies, causing Plaintiff the
suffering and damages as alleged in this Claim.
printed clearly and indelibly on both the front and back of the record, document, or thing in
solid red capital letters at least one-fourth inch in height
Art. 1.05, RIGHTS OF ACCUSED. In aif criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have
the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof, He shall not be compelled to give evidence
against himself, He shall have the right of being heard by himself, or counsel, or both; shall be confronted with the witnesses against him, and
shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. No person shall be held to answer for a felony unless on indictment of a
ane jury.
8 Texas DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 4.01 Truthfulness in Statements to Others Rule 4.04 Respect for
Rights of Third Persons (b) A lawyer shall not present, participate in prescnting, or threaten to present: (1) criminal or disciplinary changes solely
an advantage in a civil matter; or (2) ci minal or disciplinary charges against a complainant, a witness, or a potential witness in a bar
di: plinary proceeding solely to prevent participation by the complainant, witness or potential witness therein {Comment] 2. Using or threatening
to use the criminal process solely to coerce a party in a private matter improperly suggests that the criminal process can be manipulated by private
interests for personal gain.
Page 6 of 8
NOTICE OF TORT
(e.) Declaratory judgment For Plaintiff against Detra Hill their agent, agencies, and the
privateers for its agencies, for, harm, rights violations, trespass, and trespass on the case as
alleged against these named parties. Their agents, agencies, and the privateers for those agencies,
within the (4) four comers of this Claim, as those rights are guaranteed to Plaintiff by
the 1%, 4h, 5h, 6, 3, Article of the Bill Of Rights, and the 14 amendment to the
constitution of the united states of America.
(f.) Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaintas needed, correct or update list of
Parties as Their identities become known.
(g.) Such other and further relief as to the court deems proper.
PRAYER
Plaintiff prays this court finds from a preponderance of evidence that Abuse of process and
Constitutional rights had been denied. Likewise the courts will find in favor of Plaintiff and
made whole for the damages of $50,000.00. Now bearing in mind the foregoing instruction, if
you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about July 18" 2016 the
defendant, Detra Hill, did violate Plaintiff Constitutional rights by Abuse of Process, you will
find the defendant guilty.
Scott Damon Richardson
317 e Daugherty
Garland TX 75041
214-730-2471
dallasmms@gmail.com
AFFIDAVIT
(Jurant Verification)
STATE OF TEXAS )
COUNTY OF DALLAS )
I Scott Richardson the undersigned Affiant personally appeared before the Notary Public stated
herein and after being duly sworn on my oath state, declare, and depose that the above statements
are true. I am over the age of 18 years of age, am a resident of the State of Texas, have personal
knowledge of the matter of this affidavit, and am capable of making such affidavit. All of the
facts and statements made by Scott Richardson in the above statement are true and correct.
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME,
On This Day, of LD te 2017
Seal
Signature of Affiant/Jurant ohude ey7:02 Nota JOSHUA A, SMITH
ry Public, State of Texas
eS Comm. Expires 09-02-2020
%,
we Notary ID 130805832 Page 7 of 8
NOTICE OF TORT
x_ QO
Commission Expires: 4{z ,220
Notary Public for State of Texas
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a copy of this Complaint was served on the Defendant, through the office of the
clerk of the court at Mesquite Municipal Court 211 Municipal Way Mesquite TX 75149.
By:
X (A) Certified / Return receipt Registered U.S. Mail on 8-8-2017 NUMBER: 7017 0530 0000 4152
4454
(B) Personal delivery by me/ my agent on / /
—O Hand deliver delivery by
on / /
Page 8 of 8
Preview
AFFIDAVIT BILITY TO Pay ORIGIN NOTICE OF TORT FILED Cause No. DC-\1 ov} $ QITAUG10 AH 947 SCOTT DAMON RICHARDSON § IN THE pIsTRICt COURT PIT § sc ER § iid woo gnBevES oa Sry § DETRA HILL § DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS Chr “Mg / Lett; OY) COMPLAINT Now comes Scott Damon Richardson, agent, hereinafter, Plaintiff in this case. Plaintiff was ordered to court for a hearing by public attorney Detra Hill of the Mesquite Municipal Court. Plaintiff complied with court order and appeared before a non-judicial hearing. Detra Hill proceeded with a hearing noncompliant with standing law. Derta Hill simulated a legal proceeding ordering Plaintiff to trial. Detra Hill slandered and insulted Plaintiff to intimidate and force a plea. Detra Hill’s Abuse of process denied Plaintiff Due process of law. PARTIES Plaintiff: Scott Damon Richardson Defendant: Detra Hill Mesquite Municipal Court 317 e Daugherty Garland TX 75041 211 Municipal Way Mesquite TX 75149 JURISDICTION AND VENUE Petitioner brings this civil action pursuant to Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, and invokes the jurisdiction of this court. This County Court has jurisdiction over $500.00, Gov't Code Sec. 24.007 JURISDICTION.! STATEMENT OF FACTS On July 18" 2016 Plaintiff was ordered to a Pre-Trial Hearing before public attorney Detra Hill During the hearing Plaintiff said, “I do not consent to the proceeding’ Attorney Detra Hill said “well you don’t have to consent these are the options. If you don’t want to do a thing you’re free to go but. but a warrant will be issued for your arrest The Detra Hill turned towards the bailiff saying “look we have a Sovereign Citizen’ Plaintiff informed the public attorney “do not call me any names “I am an American’ Detra Hill said “Ok what do you want to do with your tickets sir Plaintiff said “Set it for trial by jury under duress, change that to judge’ Detra Hill replied... “So a bench {rial” Plaintiff said “yes under duress”.” ‘sec. 24.007 JURISDICTION (a) The district court has the jurisdiction provided by Article V, Section 8 of the Texas Constitution (b) A district court has original jurisdiction of a civil matter in which the amount in controversy is more than $500, exclusive of interest Page 1 of 8 NOTICE OF TORT 10. Detra Hill denied Plaintiff Due process of law, an Abuse of Process, Abuse of Office and Abuse of Official Capacity.* ATTORNEY DETRA HILL OPERATING BEYOND SCOPE On July 18" 2016 Plaintiff was ordered to court for a “pre-trial” hearing,‘ yet none of the courts procedures were followed. This was not an Arraignment Hearing, Pleading, Exemptions, > sec. 8.05. DURESS. (a) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by threat of imminent death or serious bodily injury to himself or another. (b) In a prosecution for an offense that does not constitute a felony, it is an affirmative defense to prosecution that the actor engaged in the proscribed conduct because he was compelled to do so by force or threat of force. (ce) Compulsion within the meaning of this section exists only if the force or threat of force would render a person of reasonable firmness incapable of resisting the pressure. (da) The defense provided by this section is unavailable if the actor intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly placed himself in a situation in which it was probable that he would be subjected to compulsion. (e) It is no defense that a person acted at the command or persuasion of his spouse, unless he acted under compulsion that would establish a defense under this section. 3sec. 39.02.ABUSE OF OFFICIAL CAPACITY. (a) A public servant commits an offense if, with intent to obtain a benefit or with intent to harm or defraud another, he intentionally or knowingly: (1) violates a law relating to the public servant's office or employment; or (2) misuses government property, services, personnel, or any other thing of value belonging to the government that has come into the public servant's custody or possession by virtue of the public servant's office or employment. (b} An offense under Subsection (a)(1) is a Class A misdemeanor. (ce) An offense under Subsection (a) (2) is: (1) a Class C misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is less than $100; (2) a Class B misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $100 or more but less than $750; (3) a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the use of the thing misused is $750 or more but less than $2,500; (4) a state jail felony if the value of the use of the thing misused is $2,500 or more but less than $30,000; (5) a felony of the third degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $30,000 or more but less than $150, 0007 (6) a felony of the second degree if the value of the use of the thing misused is $150,000 or more but less than $300,000; or (7) a felony of the first degree if the value of the use of the thing A discount or award given for travel, such misused is $300,000 or more. (a) as frequent flyer miles, rental car or hotel discounts, or food coupons, are not things of value belonging to the government for purposes of this section due to the administrative difficulty and cost involved in recapturing the discount or award for a governmental entity. (e) If separate transactions that violate Subsection (a)(2) are conducted pursuant to one scheme or continuing course of conduct, the conduct may be considered as one offense and the value of the use of the things misused in the transactions may be aggregated in determining the classification of the offense. (f£)The value of the use of a thing of value misused under Subsection (a) (2) may not exceed: qa) the fair market value of the thing at the time of the offense; or (2) if the fair market value of the thing cannot be ascertained, the cost of replacing the thing within a reasonable time after the offense. ‘art. 28.01. PRE-TRIAL. Sec. 1 The court may set any criminal case for a pre-trial hearing before it is set for trial upon its merits, and direct the defendant and his attorney, if any of record, and the State's attorney, to appear before the court at the time and place stated in the court's order for a conference and hearing. The defendant must be present at the arraignment, and his presence is required during any pre-trial proceeding. The pre-trial hearing shail be to determine any of the following matters: (1) Arraignment of the defendant, if such be necessary; and appointment of counsel to represent the defendant, if such be necessary; (2) Pleadings of the defendant; (3) Special pleas, if any; (4) Exceptions to the form or substance of the indictment or information; (5) Motions for continuance either by the State or defendant; provided that grounds for continuance not existing or not known at the time may be presented and considered at any time before the defendant announces ready for trial; (6) Motions to suppress evidence--When a hearing on the motion to suppress evidence is granted, the court may determine the merits of said motion on the motions themselves, or upon opposing affidavits, or upon oral testimony, subject to the discretion of the court; (7) Motions for change of venue by the State or the defendant; provided, however, that such motions for change of venue, if overruled at the pre-trial hearing, may be renewed by the State or the defendant during the voir dire examination of the jury; (8) Discovery; (9) Entrapment; and (10) Motion for appointment of interpreter. Sec. 2. When a criminal case is set for such pre-trial hearing, any such preliminary matters not raised or filed seven days before the hearing will not thereafter be allowed to be raised or filed, except by permission of the court for good cause shown; provided that the defendant shall have sufficient Page 2 of 8 NOTICE OF TORT Motions of continuance, suppression of evidence, change of venue, discovery, entrapment, request for interpreter, or applicability of Sec 2 or 3 of this chapter. FALSE IMPRISIONMENT ANALYSIS To establish a claim for false imprisonment, a claimant must show: (1) willful detention, (2) without consent, and (3) without authority of law. Bossin v. Towber, 894 S.W.2d 25, 29 (Tex. App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 1994, writ denied). A person who directs, requests, or participates in the detention may be liable. Id. 1. False Imprisonment-count one, Public Attorney Detra Hill ordered Plaintiff to court then denied a fair and impartial hearing Abuse of Official Capacity. First element- Detra Hill was operating out of scope and simulating a legal process. Second element- The denial of Due process by Detra Hill, a City of Mesquite employee was intentional and unlawful. Said act violated 39.02 Abuse of Official Capacity because there was no probably cause that a felony offense was committed. Conclusion- Detra Hill and employer City of Mesquite are liable for false stop/arrest/imprisonment for allowing practice/policies that violates 39.02 Abuse of Official Capacity which caused Detra Hill to harm me and my liberties by false imprisonment of my person. ABUSE OF PROCESS ANALYSIS We first turn to Plaintiff's abuse of process claim. The term "process" is defined as “[a] summons or writ, esp. to appear or respond in court." Black's Law Dictionary 1010 (8th ed. notice of such hearing to allow him not less than 10 days in which to raise or file such preliminary matters. The record made at such pre-trial hearing, the rulings of the court and the exceptions and objections thereto shall become a part of the trial record of the case upon its merits. Sec. 3 The notice mentioned in Section 2 above shall be sufficient if given in any one of the following ways: (1) By announcement made by the court in open court in the presence of the defendant or his attorney of record; (2) By personal service upon the defendant or his attorney of record; (3) By mail to either the defendant or his attorney of record deposited by the clerk in the mail at least six days prior to the date set for hearing. If the defendant has no attorney of record such notice shall be addressed to defendant at the address shown on his bond, if the bond shows such an address, and if not, it may be addressed to one of the sureties on his bond. If the envelope containing the notice is properly addressed, stamped and mailed, the state will not be required to show that it was received. 5 sec. 32.48 SIMULATING LEGAL PROCESS. (a) A person commits an offense if the person recklessly causes to be delivered to another any document that simulates a summons, complaint, judgment, or other court process with the intent to: qa) induce payment of a claim from another person; or (2) cause another to: (A) submit to the putative authority of the document; or (B) take any action or refrain from taking any action in response to the document, in compliance with the document, or on the basis of the document. (b) Proof that the document was mailed to any person with the intent that it be forwarded to the intended recipient is a sufficient showing that the document was delivered. (c) It is not a defense to prosecution under this section that the simulating document: (1) states that it is not legal process; or (2) purports to have been issued or authorized by a person or entity who did not have lawful authority to issue or authorize the document. (da) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the simulating document was filed with, presented to, or delivered to a clerk of a court or an employee of a clerk of a court created or established under the constitution or laws of this state, there is a rebuttable presumption that the document was delivered with the intent described by Subsection (a). (e) Except as provided by Subsection (f), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor. (f£) If it is shown on the trial of an offense under this section that the defendant has previously been convicted of a violation of this section, the offense is a state jail felony. Page 3 of 8 NOTICE OF TORT 2005); See Martin v. Trevino, 578 S.W.2d 763, 769 (Tex. Civ. App.-Corpus Christi_1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The elements of an abuse of process claim include (1) an illegal, improper, or perverted use of process, neither warranted nor authorized by the process, (2) an ulterior motive or purpose in exercising such use, and (3) damages as a result of the illegal act. Preston Gate, L.P. v. Bukaty, 248 S.W.3d 892, 897 (Tex. App.-Dallas 2008, no pet.). In order to be an abuse, the process must have been used to accomplish an end which is beyond the purview of the process and compels a party to do collateral things that he could not be compelled to do. Id. The crucial aspect of this tort is the improper use of process after it has been issued. Id.; Bossin v. Towber, 894 S.W.2d 25, 33 (Tex. Aj -Houston [14th Dist. 2000, pet. denied). In other words, the original issuance of process is justified, but the process is later used for an unintended purpose. Id. When the process is used for the purpose for which it was intended, even if accomplished through ulterior motive, no abuse of process has occurred. Id.; Baubles & Beads v. Louis Vuitton, S.A. 766 S.W.2d 377, 379 (Tex. App.-Texarkana 1989, no writ). The "gist" of abuse of process as a tort does not involve commencing an action or causing process to issue without justification. Blackstock v. Tatum, 396 S.W.2d 463, 468 (Tex. App.- Houston [1st Dist.] 1965, no writ). Rather, it involves misusing or misapplying process justified in itself for an end other than it was intended to accomplish. Id. The purpose for which the process is used is the only thing of importance. Id. If wrongful intent or malice caused the process to be issued initially, the claim is instead one for malicious prosecution. Montemayor v. Ortiz, 208 $.W.3d 627, 650 (Tex. App.- Corpus Christi 2006, pet. denied). Legal malice in this context means the conduct complained of must have been deliberate and without reasonable cause. Duncan Land Expl., Inc. v. Littlepage, 984 S.W.2d_ 318, 332 (Tex App.-Fort Worth 1998, pet. denied). Stated another way, the original issuance of process is justified, but the process itself is later used for a purpose for which it was not intended. Hunt v. Baldwin, 68 S.W.3d_ 117, 130 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] 2001, no pet.). When the process is used for the purpose for which it was intended, even though accomplished by an ulterior motive, no abuse of process has occurred. See id. In other words, the original issuance of a legal precess is justified, but the process itself is subsequently used for a purpose for which it was not intended. Martin, 578 S.W.2d at 769. ABUSE OF PROCESS CLAIMS COUNTS ONE ~— SIX Detra Hill a Mesquite public attorney denied Plaintiff Due process by simulating a legal proceeding violating Rights of Accused. First element Detra Hill a Mesquite public attorney insulted and defamed Plaintiff in order to harass, intimidate, and embarrass me absent a valid charging instrument. Second element Detra Hill a Mesquite City public attorney abuse of processes denied Plaintiff to a judicial determination before a sitting judge, thereby denying Plaintiff the right to speak before a magistrate. Page 4 of 8 NOTICE OF TORT 1. Detra Hill is absent capacity and standing to bring a charge before this court. Due process. Detra Hill triggered a judicial process by simulating a legal proceeding. Due process. 3. Detra Hill is tampering with a government record® by fabricating evidence against the accused. Due process. Sec. 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. fa) A person commits an offense if he: (1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record; (2) makes, presents, or uses any record) document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record; a) intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record; (4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be used unlawfully; (5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or (6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully. (b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a) (3) that the governmental record is destroyed pursuant to legal authorization or transferred under Section 441.204, Government Code. With regard to the destruction of a local government record, legal authorization includes compliance with the provisions of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code. (ce) (1) Except as provided by Subdivisions (2), (3), and (4) and by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony. (2) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was: (A) @ public school record, report, or assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, data reported for a school district or open-enrollment charter school to the Texas Education Agency through the Public Education Information Management System (PEIMS) described by Section 42.006, Education Code, under a law or rule requiring that reporting, or a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the United States, unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree; (B) a written report of a medical, chemical, toxicological, ballistic, or other expert examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action; (C) a written report of the certification, inspection, or maintenance record of an instrument apparatus, implement, machine, or other similar device used in the course of an examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action; or (D) a search warrant issued by a magistrate. (3) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a governmental record that is required for enrollment of a student in a school district and was used by the actor to establish the residency of the student. (4) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a written appraisal filed with an appraisal review board under Section 41.43(a-1), Tax Code, that was performed by a person who had a contingency interest in the outcome of the appraisal review board hearing. (d) An offense under this section, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by Section 37.01(2)(D), is: (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a) (2) or Subsection (a) (5) and the defendant is convicted of presenting or using the record; (2) a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed under: (A) Subsection (a) (1), G3), (Me or (6); or (B) Subsection (a) (2) or (5) and the defendant is convicted of making the record; and (3) a felony of the second degree, notwithstanding Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the actor's intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another. fe) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession under Subsection (a) (6) that the possession occurred in the actual discharge of official duties as a public servant. (£) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) (1), (a) (2), o (a) (5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record. (g) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more of the same type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and if each governmental record or blank governmental record form is a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or similar document issued by government. (hy) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 32.48 or 37.13, the actor may be prosecuted under any of those sections. (i) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program. (j) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a) (2) that the record, document, or thing made, presented, or used displays or contains the statement "NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT" or another substantially similar statement intended to alert a person to the falsity of the record, document, or thing, unless the record, document, or thing displays the statement diagonally Page 5 of 8 NOTICE OF TORT Detra Hill ordered Plaintiff to sign a court document under duress to trigger a legal process. Due process Detra Hill denied Plaintiff's right to speak before a judicial officer violating the Rights of Accused.’ Due process Detra Hill violated her professional conduct.” Due process. CONCLUSION This act of city officers ordering individuals to court absent a proper hearing is the practice that the City of Mesquite has allowed the Mesquite Municipal Court to employ against citizens in Dallas County. Because the officer of the court used a common practice allowed by the City of Mesquite to abuse process required in Art 16.01. City of Mesquite and Detra Hill are liable for abuse of process, due to the violation that occurred to Plaintiff. DAMAGES WHEREFORE: The Plaintiff demands to be made whole: (a.) Declaratory judgment for Plaintiff against Defendants, Detra Hill, their agents, agencies, and the privateers for those agencies, and their marital relations, jointly and severally, where it applies, for damages. (b.) Declaratory judgment for Plaintiff against Defendants Detra Hill and their marital relations where it applies, or, Punitive Damages; To be determined By A Jury for no less than $50,000.00 (c.) Declaratory judgment for Plaintiff against Detra Hill operating under color of STATE law, acting noncompliance with their own copyrighted codes, statutes, ordinances, outside their jurisdiction and scope of authority, causing Plaintiff suffering and ongoing damages alleged herein. (d.) Declaratory judgment for Plaintiff against Detra Hill and their agents, agencies, and the privateers for those agencies, for, the multiple accounts of fraud perpetrated against Plaintiff by Detra Hill their agents, agencies, and the privateers for those agencies, causing Plaintiff the suffering and damages as alleged in this Claim. printed clearly and indelibly on both the front and back of the record, document, or thing in solid red capital letters at least one-fourth inch in height Art. 1.05, RIGHTS OF ACCUSED. In aif criminal prosecutions the accused shall have a speedy public trial by an impartial jury. He shall have the right to demand the nature and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof, He shall not be compelled to give evidence against himself, He shall have the right of being heard by himself, or counsel, or both; shall be confronted with the witnesses against him, and shall have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor. No person shall be held to answer for a felony unless on indictment of a ane jury. 8 Texas DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT Rule 4.01 Truthfulness in Statements to Others Rule 4.04 Respect for Rights of Third Persons (b) A lawyer shall not present, participate in prescnting, or threaten to present: (1) criminal or disciplinary changes solely an advantage in a civil matter; or (2) ci minal or disciplinary charges against a complainant, a witness, or a potential witness in a bar di: plinary proceeding solely to prevent participation by the complainant, witness or potential witness therein {Comment] 2. Using or threatening to use the criminal process solely to coerce a party in a private matter improperly suggests that the criminal process can be manipulated by private interests for personal gain. Page 6 of 8 NOTICE OF TORT (e.) Declaratory judgment For Plaintiff against Detra Hill their agent, agencies, and the privateers for its agencies, for, harm, rights violations, trespass, and trespass on the case as alleged against these named parties. Their agents, agencies, and the privateers for those agencies, within the (4) four comers of this Claim, as those rights are guaranteed to Plaintiff by the 1%, 4h, 5h, 6, 3, Article of the Bill Of Rights, and the 14 amendment to the constitution of the united states of America. (f.) Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaintas needed, correct or update list of Parties as Their identities become known. (g.) Such other and further relief as to the court deems proper. PRAYER Plaintiff prays this court finds from a preponderance of evidence that Abuse of process and Constitutional rights had been denied. Likewise the courts will find in favor of Plaintiff and made whole for the damages of $50,000.00. Now bearing in mind the foregoing instruction, if you find from the evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that on or about July 18" 2016 the defendant, Detra Hill, did violate Plaintiff Constitutional rights by Abuse of Process, you will find the defendant guilty. Scott Damon Richardson 317 e Daugherty Garland TX 75041 214-730-2471 dallasmms@gmail.com AFFIDAVIT (Jurant Verification) STATE OF TEXAS ) COUNTY OF DALLAS ) I Scott Richardson the undersigned Affiant personally appeared before the Notary Public stated herein and after being duly sworn on my oath state, declare, and depose that the above statements are true. I am over the age of 18 years of age, am a resident of the State of Texas, have personal knowledge of the matter of this affidavit, and am capable of making such affidavit. All of the facts and statements made by Scott Richardson in the above statement are true and correct. SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME, On This Day, of LD te 2017 Seal Signature of Affiant/Jurant ohude ey7:02 Nota JOSHUA A, SMITH ry Public, State of Texas eS Comm. Expires 09-02-2020 %, we Notary ID 130805832 Page 7 of 8 NOTICE OF TORT x_ QO Commission Expires: 4{z ,220 Notary Public for State of Texas CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of this Complaint was served on the Defendant, through the office of the clerk of the court at Mesquite Municipal Court 211 Municipal Way Mesquite TX 75149. By: X (A) Certified / Return receipt Registered U.S. Mail on 8-8-2017 NUMBER: 7017 0530 0000 4152 4454 (B) Personal delivery by me/ my agent on / / —O Hand deliver delivery by on / / Page 8 of 8