# Gonzales, Alejandro Farias > Court of Appeals of Texas · March 30, 2015 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4053893 ## Case - **Court:** Court of Appeals of Texas - **Decided:** March 30, 2015 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4053893 ## Opinion text .Into and for the Texas Supreme Court RFPP|\/en IM And Justices thereof,At Austin „~ "CUElVfeU ||\f Of the State of Texas COURT OF In 'Re Alejandro Faris Gonzales 30 2015 Petitioner-Relator.Pro Se v—' 1 Supreme Case# AteMeasta,Clerk Abel Acosta/Chief Clerk of the „ „„ „„ „ .,.„ ^ iexas Court of Criminal Appeals, f RE:WR-7/,198-06;Tr.Ct.#1152889 Justices(unidentifiable by white r card manufacturer)thereof,et al., | Respondent(s) | The Texas Court's jurisdiction Is Invoked under The Texas Constution, Relator's Original Extraordinary Application For A-Writ Of Mandamus - -Relief Pursuant to Section 22.221 of the Texas Goverment Code,And Article 51.1,52.2,53(3) (1), (2), (3), (*4), (5)(A),(e), (f),(g), (h),(j)(l), (D) ,52.07- (1) ,(2) ,(b) ,53.1,57-. ••'. .,57, 3, 57.04, 72.1 (Tex .R .App. P );38.9(a) & (b), 44.43- (TCCP) ;First Amendment1.:'?; The United States Constitution, among other laws Let There Be Understanding,Now comes,Alejandro Faris Gonzales,Petitioner,and as- the Relator hereinafter,to state to the Honorable Texas Supreme Court and it's- Justices that no statute or Constitutional laws preclude this Relator from fil ing his Petition of reddress of his grievances to this said Supreme Court's Ju stices,by way of Relator requesting to proceed with his petition for A-Writ of- Mandamus to correct,and enforce the laws of the State of Texas,as well as that- of the United States of America,pursuant too the First/Fifth,Nith,and fourteenth- Amendments to the United .States Constitution, of America.However,Relator's petit ion for a Writ of mandamus is to correct Jud.i'eia^a.cfc;ipnj~./ inactions by the trial Court's acting habeas corpus judge or and its. Clerks or other unidentifiable emp loyees ,and that inactions or actions extended to the Texas Court of Criminal Ap peals Clerk,-Abel Acosta,acting in his official capacity,as Clerk,(or if other - John/jane does exist,One is not provided its name and Title) or as a recalcitrant Clerk(s) whom has refused to .f^le^grp^ indicates Relator's Colorable "claims ofr "Constitutional and' Civil'"'rights violati ons,and trial Court'sgJudge's lack of subject-matter jurisdiction are none-waiv- able issues,nor can those issues be forfeited,not even with consent of any Party of interest,.and therfore,must be ackhowideged of their presented contents on the merits of each of four grounde of error of law .And thus,the Court of Appeals of Texas-justices and. or its acting clerk.(s) have failed to fiie,fiocke t, and proper ly file for service, of process hi§ writ of mandamus^and said clerk impederer(s)- is acting in- defiance of the laws and her/his duties entrusted to him/her,as a- Public servant not only to their said. Courts, but to all people in jene-rai .Regard. less of their status as a convicted individual., or unlawfully convicted,as your - Relator sub judice-but said Clerk(s) OR AND TRIAL Court's judge nave refused to- '3a(?l0 ,(2 ),(3 ) ,(*4) ,(5 )(A) ,(e ) ,(f ) ,.(g ) ,(h ) ,(j )(I) ,(D) - 52.07(a) ,(1) ,(2) ,(b) ,53.1, 57. 2, 57. 3 ,.57 .4, -of the Texas Rules,of Appellate Proc edures for implementing the original proceedings in this said Supreme Court.as- well as that of the Texas Court of CriminalAppeals.inwhich service would be air: so in complia.-u'.e vith Articles 38.9(a) & (b) & 44.43 Of the Texas Code of Crimi nal Procedure,and these provisions implementation will serve further satisfact ion of the procription of law,as a cumulative means,-which can be synonymousl'y- in provisional joinder of laws-together to form a mass.In this regard,as if all attempts, have been made for perspective and Declaratory judgment,to, enforce One individual's[Relator's]Civil and Constitutional rights,as established by Preced ent and those laws that are guaranteed by botn federal and Texas State's Consti tutions .ie.,Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code,Chapter 16 and 37;Article I,§§- 10,12,13,19, & 29 of the Texas Constitutionals well as the First, fifth ,;&, Fourt eenth Amendments to the United States Constitution .'By advancing his [Relator 's] - arguments that he hasa vested right liberty interest in having his colorable - Constitutional and Civil rights violations claims heard and his issues present- ted under such cited laws and Precedent, his cases of claims should not be ref-n.s; used-as -if-denied by any one of nine particluar justices of the Court of Crim inal Appeals,whom by notice on an unverified or unauthorized advicemeht or both/, was delivered as of by Abel Acosta,an alleged Clerk to the Court of Criminal Ap peals.A white card with no justice,nor that alleged Clerk endorseig 'such flawed ••\&*' fauityyadyicement form or card. In fact, no evidence,: or reasoned argument to - support either factual findings required for an Opinion or judgment deniel.First and foremost;2nd-"no signatures of at least five judges who tentativelyVbelieved- or disbelieved the said mandamus Case should have been filed,-if not set for su bmission/then handled and disposed of inaccordance to what rule ? fiinon indicat ion such false denial was issued 'per Curiam*,as every.authentic and certified- letter-1inwhich in a Civil action,a single justice should notiact on a PET1TI0N- for an extraordinary Writ [n] or dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a- '.• MOTION FOR FOR REHEARING .See Tex .R .App .P .R .10 .04 (a )•( 1) & (2);Cf-R.12.2(a)(I) & — (4) ;12.6-said fictitious white card is, not a .notice of any Opinion, order, nor -." judgment of that Texas Court of Criminal Appeals.And a-white card only a notice-, to the Applicant-Relator,contrary, to that every;Party of interest be implicated- in the Proceedings at bar'.'Id. 3rd) The void white Card fails too indicate "whether it was designated as"CV"-or " GR"-in fact there is no indicator when the fictitious person's advicement of - ".denial was rendered upon a judgment or Order was signed, dated and entered as - such Opinion 's presentation; [n]-or'no affirmance of the lower Court(s) ord er, judgment or Opinion in whole or in part., ie. .R.43 .3(a) ;' 4th)-the whit card- . . - 2.1 n r e. !'-'' .• -...••• • _.. _.jf* .,•#*'' "Y boilerplater usage is an illegal standard type language identical in very lim ited,content and form-as with Relator's alleged dismissal of his received and- so-called presented-[but not filed for docketing,& processing of service]-to fehe-1" Court.See case#WR-77,198-05-refused on a false premise under 11,07,§$(a) & (b)- (TCCP)-The Truth of the. matter is Relator's Application/for a.Writ of habeas Cor pus was presented with issues of those that fall under § 4(a)(1) & (2)-*in that ir Relator's claims of grounds of errorsiof law did contain thate?MC-ustodian of record-i .e.,352 F.3d 695, 709; 124 S.Ct.l353,at 1358 :s 365 F.3d - 292,at 300-02 & n.4-5 infra]-SHALL answer the application not later than 15-davs- after the date the copy of the application is received"Thus,none of these proced ures were followed,as the trial Court's habeas Corpus judge acted with out refer- ' ice to any quiding principles,rules of law-'for the facts presented in Relator's- :./ application for a writ of habeas corpus; or if that faulty process of service was administered by an unidentifiable Court's Clerk or said Clerk,have or has render ed decisions that are clearly antihetical to the concepts set forth in the[ir] - 5.Inre. fiduciary duties and obligations toitsjjuisdiction over the - Cause and Party(s)-Person(s) of interest after 30-davs,and thus,the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals retains original or competent jurisdiction over the Cause and Person-Prisoner-Relator ,as the trial State Court ,S2r)& must serve the legal- Respondent (s) named in Relator's petitions for a writ of habeas corpus.Hamidi 8.1nre. ;; V.Rumsfeld,542 U.S.507,124 S.Ct.2633,159 L.Ed.2d 578(2004),8,272;Padilla V.Ru msfeld,352 F.3d 695,at 709;124 S .Ct .1353 ,at 135892004).THEREFORE the w,rit of - does not act upon. the. Prisoner whos seeks relief from false imprisonment but up - on the Person who holds illegal Custody of said Prisoner,the witness Custodian- of record-Eddie D.Baker,and thereby,the STATE Texas Court of Criminal Appeals - has original jurisdiction over RESPONDENT, E.D.Baker,as said Appellate C©«tr£ and- this Texas Supreme; Court have concurrent jurisdiction or exclusive jurisdiction- to hear the mandamus petition(s) relator has- proposed while he is held at the - Mark Wayne MSfc-hia-el -Prison Unit ...HENCE, EACH OF THE LOWER COURTS HAVE REFUSED & failed to file,docket and have process-ed Relator's legal said petitions and th- has led to Said Court's failure or refusual to consider Relator's primary argum ents asserted: "There Is No-Extant True Bills Of Indictment.thus,the trial Court, and judge lacked-subject-matter Juirsdiction,for Void Judgment/sentence? That void judgment issue presented is Relator's error of law-Ground One.Inwhich is an issue presented [t]herein,and intertwined with many United States Constitut ional errors of law,as wellas statutory procedure errors of law-that explicitly - illustrate subtitles as:" 1) "Issues related are founded on Abuse of the Grand jury system'.1 2)Prosecutorial malfeasance,under Cause#1123228,morphed into Cause#115288911 These void causes of action are dated/prepared 2/3/2008;(O/R:#92527607;CJIS Trac- king#038450087-D(Z$01;D.A.Log#1365189-By:RN DA #[none provided ]; also see as incorp orated by reference hereintoo, trial Court's record(CR) Vol. l'.'pg ,9 ,falsely imply ing One,ALEJANDRO FARIS GONZALES WAS legally or properly indicted und r said Ca- use(s) and citations,on 9/18/2207; or if no-Bills returned-the Grand jury was ne ver reassumbled.i.e.at page 6(A.F.G.-titled on every page's bottem).The isue pre sented extensively implicates the prosecutors used; a set of fraudulent indict ments to secure an unlawful conviction.Hamilton V.McCotter,172 F.2d 171,183-84- (5th Cir.1985).Thus,this issue of void judgment is just one of the myriad of fac tors this Court should consider,as these claims have never been considered,and never raised in prior Writs of habeas corpus."Especially,since the lower State - Courts or their Clerks [?] decision(s) were not previously founded by asceratf - on of law,nor by-law,and has not amounted to the requisite consideration of this relator's Constitutional violation claim(s) raised in his habeas corpus and or e..: writ of mandamus to proclude this Supreme Court's justices /especially when Rel ator's want of mandamus relief is an action initiated to regain[recover damages]- for the unconstitutional incarceration ,will not accure unles or untill Relator prevails in this mandamus action,as it is not res judicata in nature.seeBrown V. Edwards, 721 F. 2d 1142,1448(5th Cir.1984);Rooding V.Peters,92 F.3d 579,580(7th Cir. 1996)(same principle);Mosely V.Wilson,102 F.3d 35,91(3rd Cir.1996) & similar sit uated inmate's case is Hiser V.Franklin,94 F.3d 1287,1290 -92(9th Cir.1996)(inma tes § 1983 claims statingTas in Relator's case herein]denial of access to the — 9.Inre. Courts not barred by collateral estoppel or res judicata,where Constitutional- Violations Accured after earilar litigation and subsequent judicial decisions, held some circumstances prisoners have a Constitutional right to photocpies- of legal documents ), cert. denied ,17 S.Ct.1106(1997);Cf.Fields V.Sarasota Manate ee Airport Auth,953 F.2d 1299,1306(11th Cir.1992),"suit not barred by res jud - icata,when claim brought after nearly identical State claim defeated'.'Id.. . Cf.Walker V. Packer, 827 'S.W. 2d 833 .-840(Tex .1992) (broadly explaing when a Relat or is and isn't required to satisfy this requirement). II.A. LACK OF A-LEGAL REMEDY TO APPEAL ANY ,OF THE ISSUES PRESENTED IN THIS [WANT]- OF MANDAMUS PROCEEDING-IM THE LOWER CRIMINAL COUERTS,YET CIVIL ACTION: One of the Two burden charged upon thi[s] Relator in seeking Mandamus relief- ,in this Supreme Court is to show that s/he lacksea remedy,of right to appeal - [his] issue(s) subject to the initiated mandamus proceeding.Walker V.Parker,-- 827 S.W.2d at 840-41 & n.8;citing various cases,including Hollavay V.Fifth Ct,- of App,767 S.W.2d. 680,684(Tex.1989).' Relator's present mandamus proceeding presents two - main Claims: lst)under the faulty and fatally defective Clerk's or justices advisement that [a] Court has denied motion for leave to file[as submitted] the original app lication for writ- of mandamus to correct judicial action that is clearly Con trary to well-settled law,law that is/are derived from various statutes and Con stitutional Provisions,rules of law,and Opinions of the[ir]superior Courts,ap art from the[ir].Own Precedent.Ibid.See also:U.S.V.Short,181 F.3d 620,at 624(5- th Cir.1999)(citation inoriginal);Cf.Womak V.Berry,156,Tex.44(1956),"mandamus - is designed to command a judge,among other aspects,to rule upon a properly sub mitted [filed] mothion within a reasonable time'.'Id ;cf .Rules 37.1 & 37.2,& 37.3(a)- (1) ,(2) ;38.2(b)(1)(A),(B),(2)(B) ;52.1,52.2;52.3(a) to (j)(2-) ,id.at (e) & (j)- (1)(D) ;52.7(a)(1) & (2) ;53.1;54.2(a) to (b);54.4 et seq;55.2(d) & 55.5-"Relia- nce on prior brief'.'id. B) 2nd) As the White card indicates,advisement of denial to file motion for lea ve to file a mandamus petition is legally impossible,as no signatory endorsem ent appears rj-o affirm a final judgment or some type of Order,since it is a ma ndatory duty and requisite,of all trial judges setting or presiding in a Courts of law to only render such judgment W/^fe the defendant(s)/Plaintiff(s) or Par- • ties of interest to be duly served process of service and proof therefrom provi ded to; all said parties,with such legal services of process;Based on-the newer- discovered evidence -of -void -judgment of the trial- Court -and -lissues of: fraudul ent indictment under cause#1152889-derivative of#11223228[related citation under #903 8450087-DOOl-TRN-the alleged icident codified numbers that morphed into the- fraudulent charqes that the Court of Criminal Appeals has declined to open it's dors to duly consider those idsims submitted to be heard on their merits,and [t]- herein,the the Appellate Ccoifi's officer(s) were conscious of the trial Court's abuse of authority for constructively denying Relator access to that Court,and - said Appellate Court's Respondent(s) has sanctioned a departure from the accep- lO.Inre. ted and usual course of judicial proceedings and in doing so merits this call for an exercise of the Texas Supeme Court,justices- power of supervision- as if to implement Texas Government Code,§ 22.221(b),with Rule 66.3(b),(c ),&- (d) & (f)(Tex.R.App.P.)-Because no Court of Appellate jurisprudent instructs their/it's Clerks to refuse or denying an- initiate falsely imprisoned, his right to have his petition for reddress of his grievances to- be filed,and entered in to the[ir]Court's(s) docket,for- due consideration.Thus,the Criminal Court of - Appeals has misstated facts on Petioner's[Relator's] habeas corpus petition on or about 6/11/2014,when it unreasonably induced or suggested to deny,assuming- argunable ,a decision that is evidently contrary to,-or-'a decision to deny fi ling Relator's pleaded petition for a writ of habeas corpus,and a subseqent - Writ of mandamus was denied without a written order-upon the motion for leave- on 2/18/2015(received on 2/23/15), which involved an application of,clearly est ablished federal law and federal rights,as determined by the United States Sup- 'reme Court]'s-justices];as well as the Fourteenth Amendment,Clause l,to the Un ited States Constitution,and were decisions based on an unreasonable determin ation of Relator's presented facts [found] in light of his ..evidence proferred- as presented in the lower State Courts-proceedings,but never actually heard or considered by the Trial Court,nor the Criminal Court of Appeals.Thus,Relator's rejected questions of law and facts were never adjudicated on their merits in- the lower said Courts.Inwhich dismissals,refusuals or authorized denials are as sumed decisions that are clearly antithetical to the concepts set forth in the- Declaration of Independence and the Const itution (s) as the Founding Fathers [ha-r av]understood and [had] expounded them-"Publish^interpretation of laws and pro- mulgate-d rules based on those interpretations,and [t]hereby 'said Respondent(s)- have violated not only the[ir]Sworn Oath to Office,and to defend and uphold the Texas Constution,as well as the United States Constitution-of America.See Kitc hens V.Johnson,190 F.3d 698,700(5th Cir.1999);CF.Cramer V.Sheppard,176 S.W.147,- 140 Tex.271(Tex.1941)(statutes cannot over ride the Constitution);Cf.Colden V. Alexander ,171 S.W.2d 328,141 Tex.134(Tex.1943)(held that an utterly void Act[Bi- 11] can have no effect to::aceomplish anything);Hudson V.Palmer,supra,"that est ablishes inmates should not be denied access to Courts as a result of their Sta tuses 14.008 & 14.012,Tex.Civ.Prac, & Rem.Code; but said lower Courts/Respond ents) implied decision(s) conflicts with it's own precedent,and that has led - ,to(incorrectly)apply governing legal rule from[State Courts Precedent] cases,as well as applying procedure sanctions to Relator's issues of facts and law of[t]- his particular Case of rights violations sub judice,and thus,Appellate Court's Respondent(s) has waived its duty to consider and decide on impartant -questions of State and federal laws in a way that conflicts with the[ir]applicable decis ions previously made under precedent and appears to have misconstrued [a] stat ute (s),rule(s),regulation(s)/Ordinance or and the Constitution of the State of Texas,and the United States.e.g.,Continental Coffee Products CO.V.Cazarez,937 - 11.Inre. S.W.2d 444,449,n.2(Tex.1996),"Subject-matter jurisdiction cannot be presu med and cannot be waived'.'Id; Latana V.Hopper,102 F.2d 188;Chicago V.New York,37- F.Supp.150:Citations are expressed as: ",C0URTS MUST PROVE ON THE RECORD, ALL JURISDICTION ..facts related to the- Jurisdiction asserted','Id.. .And the Law requires proof of jurisdiction to- appear on the record of the administrative agency and all administrative proce edings. "Once jurisdiction is challenged,cannot be assumed and must be decided;- and it must be proved to exist'.'Maine V.Thiboutot, 100 S .Ct. 250 ;Hagan V.Lavine, -\\'. 415 U.S.533;and there is no discretion— to ignor lack of jurisdiction.Joyce V.- U.S.474 2d 215.. "The burden shifts to the Court to prove. jurisdiction'.'Rosemond V.Lambert,469 F.2d 416;Cazarez,937 S.W.2d at 449,n.2;"Lack of subject-matter ju risdiction makes a judgment void not just voidable'.' Id ;Mapco V.Forrest, 795 S.W.- 2d 700,703(tex.1990) ,-New York Life Ins.CO.V.Brown,84 F.3d 137,142-43,& n.16-17- & n.I0-12(5th Cir.1996),in pertinent part: "Under OUR system of justice,the opportunity to be heard is the most fundamental requirement';'The fundamental requisite of[l]egal] due process of law is the opportunity to be heard!Id;Ruiz V.Quarterman,504- F.3d 523,527(5th Cir.2007)(same);Cf.Davis V.State,227 S.W.3d 733,736,n.1-3(Tex. Cir.App.2007)(lack of subject-matter jurisdiction,rendered Void: judgment,for - document[indictment's invalidity]not purporting to be a valid charging instrum ent).The Respondent'(s) to the Court of Criminal Appeals refused to file,dock^ et,and process for sevice Relator's primary Argument,Ground One error of law,— "that the Trial Court,and it's trial judge,permitted the prosecuting team to use their own umauthorization .and their own version of a Grand Jury Panel's; indictment,under eause#1152889(derived from#1122328;0/R:"92527607),and thus,- committed fraud-upon-the-Courts ,and therefore ,rendered a void judgment'.'Id .. . C)"Whether there is no final judgment in this cause of action sub judice ?".;. and does the Court of Criminal Appeals or and trial Court's records reflect a Final Judgment was signed and entered on any particular day ?.Including,but not limited to, "do any decision exist to express any of 3 :or 6>[sic ]jusictices decla red :-'FOR THE REASONS SET FORTH IN THE COURT's'memeorandum and order of APPLI CANT'S Petition for a Writ of habeas corpus is DINIED'.'.. ..."This Is A Final- Judgment"... Signed on this day of ___2Q15 [or 2014 ?].There was,as is- . no indication, as due process. ,of.. law. mandates a-notice.,to -Claim,."This Case was - brought[came] on -for consideration by the said Appiellate Court/Respondent(s ),&,, the[relator's]issue(s) duly considered and a decision duly rendered;It [was]is ORDERED/ADJUDGED and DECREED that the Habeas corpus petition[or Writ of madamus] id Dismissed:for whatever reason; There is no indication when said WRITS were -' entered on either trial Courtis or and the Appellate Court's docket,pusuant :to-, a certain Tex .R.App .P.-, and sufojeet-eause h®3 previously been refetad and pjresen-r ted to the justices thereof.Hence.with so many defectives in procedures at the- tra.il level, and carried on to the Appellate level,-well issues of fact were not- Contsrued liberally in Agplicant/Relator's favor,nor taken as true,pursant to - Rule 38.9(a) &(b);Mendian Resourses Inc.V.Colley Gin Co,430 S.W.2d 372,supra- 11.Inre. (Tex.1968)(Because both transcripts and statement of facts must be timely- filed to confer the jurisdiction on the Appellate Court)(State Civil Codes- ited above). D) Liberal Construction Prayed For / It is requested that this Application for a Writ of mandamus be constuctWg./// - required in Hains V.Kerner,404 U.S.519,92 S.Ct.594(1972);Johnson V.McAdams,781- S.W.2d 451(Tex.App.1989);Rule 38.9(a) &;(b)(Tex.R.App.P).Because Relator's leg al aid is sui juris,and [We] both contend that he is a layman,unskilled,and - not experience enough in the drafting of writs,formal legal pleadings,or error- s of law,under applications of law in general,and may be [t]herein, entitled to- less stingent standards than formal pleadings drafted by professional lawyers'.'- Id...And,because briefs are meant to acquaint the Courts with the issues in a - given case and to present arguments that will enable this Court to decide this case,substantial compliance with this rule is suffient,subject to criteria un der (a) & (b) '.Ibid. E) A the white card is wholly and expressly said to be fatally defective,subject- cause has no evidence that any particular justice(s) of the Appellate Court had not themselves agreed upon its rationle,so that the[ir]basis of the white card ' was not,or is not merely undiscovereble -but none-existent advisory•; and .such - denial to the Courts implications means said denial without a written order - does not constitute a [ny] decision on the merits-by applying a presumption th at when A-FEDERAL [CONSTITUTIONAL] Claim is denied without explicit reliance - on State grounds,the merits of the Federal Claims are the basis for the hypot hetical judgment.Inwhich,the Supreme Court of the United States- has disapproved of any doctrine of hypotethical jurisdiction,as it produces nothing more than - a hypotethical judgment-which comes to the same thing as an advisory Opinion. SeeiSfeeel CO.. V. Citizens For A Better Env't,523 U. S .99 .100 .101 ,;118 S ,Ct. 1003 ,10- 07,1015-1016, £ n.9-10(1998) ;C.f.Ylst V.Nunneraaker501 U-.S.795, 797,111 S.Ct.2590,- 2593-94,2595,& n.2,5(1991),cited in Cone V.Bell,129 S .Ct.1769,suprat2009)(same point of void assumption of claim's consideration)(ciatlon unavailable);and cit ed in Williams V.Cllins,802 F. Supp. 15 30-, 1533-35 , & 1338-1344 (W. D.Tex .)^f whetner- t'rie Appellate Court had actually considered and ruled, on the. Petitioner's Clai ms of defective indictments ,& ine.f fecti ves counsel; issues compounded by-an evai- ulation of whether the State.'. Courts ruled on an; adq.uate and independent State- ground or whether a State procedure bar should apply ?,as in this Case Sub ju ice,there is no such §tate Court's findings i© the.present Case!.' Id. afci$L>3-3 3t34*U & 1338...Thus,in Order to determine whether the hypotethical Order or judgment should.be reviewed only as the Appellate Court's decision,not it's result,with out: any reasoning ,nor written opinion .. assuming arguable ,because Respondent (s)- ...found it had no jurisdiction, and therefore, S/he could not consider ,-Order and- • Adjudged/that the verdict findinqs of quilt [t]hereln Shall not be .final,that- "sno' judgment-be rendered thereon; and found that the instrument [indictment ] did- • 12.Inre. not show the defendant[Appellant] was not adjudged to be quilty or punished as was required by Art-.-4-2-.iv'efseq-;'and-thus, there was no final judgment from whi ch Appellant could appeal.Mosqueda V.State, 936 S --Wi 714 .'716 ;citing Savant V.State- 535, S.W.3d 190( Tex.. Cr.Aop. 1976) jMe^p^ legally be Invoked,the power of the Court,in a-felony'Case is' derivative cf the valid True Bills of indictment,as it is essential to the trial Court's[judge's]jurisdiction in a criminal Case.Where the indictment is void,the trial Court is without the - power to act.Jurisdiction cannot be 'substantially' invoked;it either attaches - or it does not;it encompasses the power of the Court and the Court's Authority - to determine all essential and Constittuent elements and questions to an offense sought to be charged'[case indispute];it must be invoked by properly and comple tely stating "an offense against the laws of Texas and.the Test is'not ot be app lied by highsight;a defect in the charging instrument relating to;jurisdiction - requirements cannot be waived,or forfeited,not even with Consent.Ep Kirby V.Sta te, 626.S.W.2d 533,supra(Tex.Cr.App.1982);Keeter V.State,105 S.W.3d 137,142,N.6- 8(Tex.App.-Waco 2003).In fact,in this instanteCase sub judice,any unaswered que stions was not or never about the evidence,[beasues none existed] but about the subject-matter,cause of action or jurisdiction of the trial Court...Which is Man datory that the instrument State the necessary and CONSTITUENT elements of - the Ofense.Dennis V.State,647 S.W.2d 275,supra(Tex.Cr.App.1983);01ivo V.State,- 918 S.W.2d 579,supra(Tex.Cr.App.l996);Coleman V.State>918 2d 39,43(Tex.Cr.App.19- 96);STATE V.Moff,154 3d 599,601,n.1-2(Tex.Cr.App.2004). III.A The Standard for Summery Judgmention in Mandamus,As If Habeas Corpus Cases: AS THE Issue of the Texas SUPEME Court's jurisdiction is fundamental and may be raised at any time or any stage during the Appellate process,as a general princi ple,Rule 166a (sup Ct-R.Tex),as if an independent suit-in equity,under Art.27.- 08(4)(TCCP)/which is too be applied with equal force in the context of §22.221- (Tex.Gov. Code,because Relator -submits that the Grant of relief bt this Supreme Court of Texas is a legal and civil-matter of judicial discretion in consider ing and deciding whether this case sub judice involves the construction or and - validity of statutes implicated above,for Relator's Case does involve Constitut ional issues. In light of the'..Texas Court of Criminal Appeals, as Respondent (s) ,?-•... appears to have committed an error of law of such importance to the State of Te xas juisprudence that it should be corrected.Mainly because Relator must have - a clear' right-that the Respondent(s) does not recognize,to the relief sougth,- and that is beyond disput.In that the requirements of a clear legal right neces sitates, that the law plainly describe-' duty to be performed such that there - is no room for the exercise of discretion.Wilson V.Dunn,800 S.W.2d 833,836(Tex.- 1990).In that Relator fully complied with Rules 106(b),& 109,& 21a(Tex.R.Civ.Pro. ;including the recitation of apprepriate laws that were appliable thereof).Inso-. fair as they are consistant in the Context of habeas corpus cases(Wfl &&77f/?/i's/f£-//^> JtWJst, (Z*&iSM?iP; >*Z^?fo 16.Tnre, --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4053893. Public record. Not legal advice.