David Schied v. Michael Ray Merritt

1 @»-~/~/5~004<@@@\/

IN THE FIRST DISTRICT COURT OF APPEALS F\L\=_o \N PEALS

IN THE 'sTATE oF TEXAS b `SWCURTOFAP

HOUS"'OM_ TEXAS

In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied, DEC 2 3 205

Deceased CHNST H .~ - ‘NE

y D'a`V-id Schied, Case No. 434875 CLERK

Interested Party Plaintiff/

Principal Co-Heir

vs

M'ichael Merritt (named “ex_ecutor”) and Wynde Merritt (“co-executor” by

Janette Renee Smith proxy)

Robin Apostolakis

David Munson

Co-Defendants/Appellees

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE /

12/19/15

FORMER (lower court) counsel and CURRENT‘(C_OAA) counsel

AQQ€llantl Jeanette Smith - co-defendant Jeanette Smith - co-Appellee

David Schied ._ Su,' Ju,.,~s and RObin L. APOStOlakiS, Robin` Apostolak`is = co-Appellee

p_O_ BOX` 1378 ` " 4 attorney and co-defendant and attorney of record;

Novi, Michigan 48376 Gaunte, Earl, & Binney, LLP v _ Steven C. Earl - artorney of record

248_347_1684 1400 WOOleCh FOI‘CSt D!'., St€.575 Ma!'fin, Eal‘l & StilWCll, LLP

The Woodl`ands, Te"xas 773 80 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.590

281-367-6555 The Woodlands, Tex_as 77380

r`ob.i.n.aposto|ak_is@geb_lawy`ers.com 281_4] 9_6200

‘ M@Mw"!m-Com

M@meslawa

Attn: Mr. Christopher Prine, Clerk of the Court

c/o Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas

301 Fannin Street

Houston, Texas 77002~2066

I hereby certify that on 12_/19/ 15 l sent one “original” (without binding or

tabs) and one copy to the Court of Appeals at the address above a full set of the

documents listed below, sent by Priority Mail / U.S. Postal Delivery to the

attention of Christopher Prine, Clerk of the Court.

I also sent a full set-of these same copies of the following documents to the

“cur`ren"t” law firm for the App_ellee Jeanette Smith and attorney/Appellee Robin

Apostolakis at the address cited above:

l) Grievant David Schied ’s “Resvonse in Opposition and Denial ” to “Janette

Smith ’s and Robin Al)ostolakis ’ ‘Motion to Dismiss ’ Based Upon Criminal

Fraud Upon the Lower Court and the Texas Court oprpeals and Refusal of

Either Court to Properlv Respo'nd to Interlocutorv and Final Jud2ment

Appeals or to Even Honore Previous Notices and Requests for Des1'2nat1'0n

ofAdditional Item(s) to Be Included' 1n the O_fficial Court Record or to

Correct Documented Inaccuracies in the T_rial Court ‘Docketin2’ Records”;

2) Gr"ievant David Schied’S ‘Brie in Su art 0 Re`s` onse in O' osition an___a_'

De'nial ” to “Janette Smith s and Robin_Anostolakis ' ‘Mot`ion to Dismiss ’ ”

Based Upon Criminal Fraud Up'on the Lower Court and the Texas Court of

Appeals and Refusal of Either- Court to Properlv Respond to Interlocutorv

and Fina_l Jud2ment Appea'ls or to Even Honore P-revious Not'ices and

Requests for Designation of Additio'nal liem(s) 10 Be Included in the O#z`cl`al

Court Record or to Correct Docwnented Inacc-uracies in the Trial Court

‘Docketing’ Records ”";

3) Grievant David Schied’ s ‘Memorandum_ of Law in Su_ppor_t_ of Grlevant s

Previouslv Filed Interlocutorv Appeal_ and Appeal With O_uesti_ons of Law

Per`tainin2' to Whether Judicial Independence Authorl`ze`s Bad Be`havior,'

and Whether ‘Substantive’ Evidence Can Be ‘Procedurallv’ Stricken, and

Whether Evidence of a ‘Pattern & Practice ’ of Go'vernment Coercion

ganstitutes Treason and/or Domestic- Terrorism ” (See labeled ,EXWT

_#_Q_’f for this tiling);

4) “Af/"idavit of T ruth Authenticating Accuracv of Audio TranscriptJ Crime

Report, and Other Documents Provin2 ‘Domestic Terrorism ’Bez`n2 Carri`ed

Qut Through the Court Svstem O'peratin21n the State of T exas (See labeled

» IT #.1 :’ for this tiling); ”

5) Swom and notarized “Statement` m Report of State and F ederal Crz`mes”

(“Crime Report”) dated 12/18/ 15

6) This “Certijicate of Servic'e"’

Respectfully submitted,

12/19/15

FlLE_D |N

lsT COURT OF APPEALS

HOUSTON, T'EXAS

IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS DEC 2 3 2015

OF THE ST'ATE OF TEXAS IN HARRIS COUNTY

CHRISTOPHEH A. PRINE

' C

In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied, LERK\~

Deceased

Dav`id Schied, Case No. 434875

Interes'ted Pal'ty Plain'tij}'/ “Judge” Loyd Wright

Principal Co-Heir

vs

Michael Merritt (named “exe_cutor”) and Wynde Merritt (“co-executor” by

Janette Renee Smith proxy)

_ Robin Aposto_la_kis

David Munson v

Co-Defendants /

GR!EVANT bAVib_S"CHI_ED_’S ‘-‘RESPON_SE _1N OPPoslrzaNANP QENIAL”

To 1 _

“JANETTE sMITH’s AND ROBIN APGS,TOLAKISS ‘MoTIoN To DIsMIss’”

"BASED UPC)N` CRiMjNA/`. FRA“'Ub UP`()N THE"'LOWER CoURT AND THE

TEXAS COURT oF APPEALS

AND REFUSAL oF_EITHER COURT `TfO PROPERLY RESPOND To

INTERLOCUT_ORY AND FINAL JUDGMENT APPEALS

0R TO EVE_N HONGR PR_EVI_OUS NOTICES AND REQUESTS FOR

DESIGNATION oF ADDITIONAL ITEM(S)TO BE INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL

COURT RECORD oR To CORRECT DOCUMENTED INACCURACIES IN THE

TRIAL coURT “DoCKETING” RECORDS '

/

David Schied _ Sul~ Jw,l-s Jeannette Smith - co-benet`lciary Michael (named executor) and

15__0. B'OX 1378 " and Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney Wynde Merritt (executor by proxy)

'Novi’ Michigan 48376 Gaunte, Earl, & Binney, LLP and Da`vid A. Mu`nson

248__3,47;1684 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.575 2002 Timberloch Pl.-, Ste. 200

` The Woodlands, Texas 77380 The Woodlands, Texas 77380

281-367-6555 281-210-3467

Jeann_ette Smith - co-beneficiary ' Michael Merritt and Wynde Merritt

203 McNair St. y 8526 Hot Springs Dr.

Pea Ridge, Arkansas 72751 Houston, Texas 77095

479-45 l -8692 281 -855-27`14

7l 3-430-6286

David Schied (hereinafter “Grievant”), being one of the Peoplel and having

established this case as a suit of the sovereigng acting in his own capacity, herein

accepts for value the oaths3 and bonds of all the officers of this court, including

l PEOPLE. “People are supreme, not the state.’ `[Warin2 vs". the Mavor of

Savannah 60 Georgia at 93]; “T he state cannot diminish rights of the people.”

[Hertado v. Calitornia, 100 US 516]; Preamble to the US and Michigan

Constltutlons ` “We the people.. do ordain and establish this Constitution...;”

f‘....at the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people,' and they are truly the

sovereigns of the country, but they are sovereigns without subjects..-. with none to

govern but themselves...” [Chisholm v. GeOrgi_a (US) 2 Da_ll_419, 454, 1 L Ed 440,

455., 2 Dall (1793) pp471 -472]: “T he people of this State, as the successors'of its

former sovereign are entitled to all the rights which formerly belonged to the King

by his prerogative ” [La_n_s_ing v. Smith, 4 We`nd. 9 (N. Y. ) (1829), 21 Am. Dec. 89

10C Con_st. Law Sec. 298; 18 C Em. Dom Sec. 3 ,;'228 37 C Nav. Wat. Sec. 219;

Nuls S_ec, 167; 48 C Wharves Sec. 3, 7]. Seealso, Dred Scott -v. Sandford, 60 U.-S.

393 (1856) Which states:v "T he words 'people of the United States' and 'citizens’ are

synonymous terms, and mean the same thing T hey both describe the political body

who, according to our republican institutions form the sovereignty, and who hold

the power and conduct the Government through their representatives T hey are

what we famlltarly call the sovereign people’, and every citizen is one ofthis

people and a constituent member of this sovereignty."

2 McCullock v. Marvland_ 4 Wheat 316, 404 405 states "In the United States,

Sovereignty resides in the people, who act through the organs established by the

Const_itution " andC Colten v. K_entuc@ (1972) 407 U. S. 104, 122, 92 S. Ct. 1953

states; "T he constitutional theory is that we the people are the sovereigns the state

and federal ojj"cials only our agents " See also, First Trust Co. v. Smith 134 Neb.;

277 SW 762, Which States in pertinent part, "The theory of the American political

system is that the ultimate sovereignty is in the people, from whom all legitimate _

authority springs and the people collectively`, acting through the medium of

constitutions create such governmental agencies endow them with such powers,

and subject them to_ such limitations as in their wisdom will best promote the

common good. "

3 GATHS. Articl____`e__ VI: " T his Constitution, and the laws of the United States... shall

be the supreme law of the land, and the judges in every State shall be bound

thereby,' anything in the Constitution or laws of any State to the contrary

notwithstanding... All executive and judicial o_]j'l`ce'rs, both of the United States and

ii

attorneys. Having already presented his causes of action to this Texas “Appellate”

Court as a court of recordi, Grievant herein and hereafter proceeds according to

the course of Common` Law§..

3 incorporated herein by reference are the Statements and Evidence contained

in the previously-filed documents of this case, and all other'docum_ent_s referenced

by the pages therein as supporting Evidence.

No_tice is provided herein that I DO NOT CONSENT t_o the reference of

Grievant David Schied as a corporate fiction in ALL CAPS of lettering as

“plaintiff’ (“DAVID SCHIED, plaintiff’), nor do I consent to the

mischaracterization of sui juris Grievant David Schied as operating in a “p_ro per”

of the several States, shall be bound by oath or affirmation to support this

Constitution.""

4 "'A Court of 'Record is a judicial tribunal having attributes and exercising

functions independently of the person of the magistrate designated generally to

hold it, and proceeding according to the course of common law, its acts and

proceedings being enrolled for a perpetual memorial ". [Jones v. Jones, 188

Mo.App. 220, 175 S.W. 227, 229; Ex parte Gladhill,- 8 Metc. Mass., 171, per

Shaw, C.J. See also, Ledwith v. Rosals@, 244 N.Y. 406, 155 N._E. 688, 689].

5 COMMON LAW. - According to Black’s Law'Dictionary (Abridged Sixth

Edition, 1991): “As distinguished from law created by the enactment of

legislatures [admiralt)/], the common law comprises the body of those principles

and rules of action, relating to the government and security of persons and

property, which derive their authority solely from usages and customs of

immemorial antiquity, or from the judgments and decrees of the courts

recognizing aj"irming, and enforcing such usages and customs."’ “[I]n this sense,

particularly the ancient unwritten law of England.” [l Kent, Comm. 492. State, v

Buchanan,~ 5 Ha_r,_ & J. (Md.) 3G5, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Luxv_. _Ilaggin, G9 Cal. 255, 10

Pac. G74; Western Union Tel. Co. v. Call Pub. Co,, 21 S.Ct. 561, 181 U.S. 92, 45

L.Ed. 765; Barry v. Port.l._erv_is, 72 N.Y.S. 104, 64 App. Div. 268;_ U..S. v. Miller

D..C. Wa`sh., 236 F. 798, 800.]

iii

or “pro se” capacity. Note that all “summons” were issued with notice to all co-

Defendants that Grievant David Schied is “suijuris~.”

Notic'e is alsoprovided herein that I D(). N()T CONSENT to any court with

a proven proclivity toward contributing to the domestic terrorism being carried out,

hand-in-hand» with state and county government imposters, as usurp ' er`s of T he

People ’s power and authority.

1. DENIEDAS 'GRossLY MISLEADIN_G -' Appellee Michael Merritt Was

named as the first of two estate executors by the decedent who died on or

around August 7, 2014; and, as the Evidence submitted to the lower court by

Grievant/Appellant David Schied ("‘Grievant”) Shows, by the time Appellee

Michael Merritt had filed for executor and for letters testimony nearly four

months later "‘on or`about 00tober 23'd” through his attorney," now named

“A_ppellee"’ David Munson, he had already well-demonstrated his unworthiness

for that appointment and a strong propensity toward treating Inte'reste_d Party

Plaintiff and Co-Heir Grievant David Schied,with great angst and prejudice

2. DENIED AS FRAUD BY GRO'SS_ OMISSIONS -~ Grossly omitted from

Appellee Apostolakis’ filing, submitted under ()ath of truthfulness as an

“o'fficer of the co'urt” is the FACT that the “numerousfilings” reflected the 7

initial filing of an initial ‘-‘cop_ig_laim” (i.e., see ‘€EXHIB'!T.#!” and EXHIBIT

§§_”, containing proof of service) that named Appellee 'Janette Smith and was

served upon her known attorney, hired specifically for this ca_se,v because of an

earlier letter sent from Appellee 'Apostolakis. to Appellant David Schied in

claim that the Last Will and Testiment of Decedent Michael Edward Schied

was “invalid” and “unenforceable.” (“EXHIBIT#Z”)

Notably, the “relief’ requested was not for money but instead-, in the form

of a “Motion to Compel” the'production of documentation t__o prove the

fraudulent claim by`Appellee Apostolakis, along with copies of other

documents and valuables that were taken by Appellee Janette Smith taken from

the decedent’s home in the immediate aftermath of “Mickey” Schied’s death.

When Appellee failed to “answer” the Compla`int in a timely manner,» Grievant

then filed with ‘~" root ot Service” his ‘~‘Motion for Default J,ud2ment_.”

When it soon began clear that the judge’s clerk of Probate Court #1 was

“expediting” a _Schedu_ling Control Qr__de_r Hearing for Decernber 19, 2014

(12/19/14) at the request of Appellee David Munson, Grievant David Schied

filed his “Motion for Emergencv Hearing-..,” to address what was then the

“appearance” that the so-called "‘judge”’ Loyd Wright was awarding prejudicial

favor to Appellees David Munson and Robin Ap.ostolakis because they were

attorneys, while exhibiting prejudicial bias against Grievant David Schied

because he was an out-of-state “pro se,” “s'uijuris,” and/or “form`a pauperis”

litigant not contracted or paying a card-carrying Texas State B`AR member as

his legal “representative.”

Significantly, all of the above should otherwise be found in a review of

the docketing records of the lower court. This would be the case except for the

FACT that the Clerk of the Court Stan Stanart has been acting with the

parallel appearance of being in on the “consp_iracy to deprive” Grievant of

his “rig.ht to due process” by maintaining inaccurate court records with

misleading actual dates of Grievant’s filings and Grievant"s actual dates of

“service"’ upon the co-Appelle,es; along with Stanart’s captioning cases in

the docketing records to intentionally mask the actual titles of Grievants

documents and keep hidden the exact nature of Grievant Schied’s actual

filings, (Bold emphasis added)

These covert actions by the Harris County Clerk of the Court has made it

necessary for Grievant to repeatedly file additional notices, motions and

petitions to both the lower and higher Tean courts for “correcting the record15 "

and adding other documents into the “record on appeal” that were not reflected

or included in the lower Probate Court record despite `Evidence that they were

“served” by Grievant and received as “filea"’ by both the lower and higher

courts. (See “EXHIBIT#S” for cover pages of some of the formal documents

that were received and time-stamped by both the lower probate and higher

appellate courts`in` Texas in Grievant’s ill=.fated attempt to correct the lower

court record.) Altogether, this Evidence depicts the criminal corruption and

the conspiracy to deprive of rights exhibited between the judge, the

clerk(S), and the two attorneys (Munson and Apostolakis) involved in the

lower and higher court cases. (Bold~ emphasis added)'

. DENIED AS FRAUD BY GROSS OlVIISSIONS 4 The request by Appellees

Apostolakis and Smith for the Court “to take judicial notice of the probate

court ’sfi,le” is a misnomer because, as stated ab'ove, both offices of the clerks ~

of the lower Probate Court #l and this Texas Court of 'Ap'pea_ls in Houston .-

have ignored Grievant Schied’s previous notices that the court’s “file” and

“docketing” records transferred to the appellate court are grossly inaccurate and

in need of correction

Furthermore, Apostolakis grossly omits the FACT that both she and

Janette Smith were served with Various “motions” that they otherwise chose to

ignore (except for Janette Smith to attend Grievant’s “emergency motion”

hearing on 12/19/14), prior to the 12/19/14 issuance of the Docket Control

Order referenced by Apostolakis`.l As shown by “EXHIBIT#4”), Appellees

were served with “certificates of service” on the “Motion for Detault 1

Judgment” and subsequent “Motion for Emergencv Hearing” when Appellee

Janette Smith failed to “answer” the initial Coleaint.

In FACT, as is found in the Evidence of “Exhtblt attached, both

Robin Apostolakis and Janette Smith were fully apprised of each move

Grievant Was making in the Court in effort so as t_o ensure that they both knew

about the initial “Coleaint..,” filed 11/4/14, the Motion for Detault

Judgment...filed a month later on 12/4/14, and everything else leading up to the

“Emergency Hearing” on 12/19/14, as found in emails and formal

‘~‘Certi[icate_(s) vofService” about each of those proceedings

Note also that, as shown by the email dialogue between Grievant and the

judge’s clerks Kimberly Hightower and Susie Row`ley found in “Exhtbtt#$,”

the hearing for the Docket Control Order Was combined with Gri'evant’s

“Motion for Emergencv Hearing...” because the Probate Court was creating a

serious delay in refusing to schedule a summary motion hearing for Grievant’s

previous filing of “Motion for Default Judgment"’; and because the judge’s clerk

instead was demonstrating the propensity to give higher priority to Appellee

David Mun_son’s informal emails to those court clerks in request for them to

“expedite” the issuance of that Scheduling Control Order instead.

. DENIED_AS~FRAU,D BY GROSSOMISSIONS - Apostolakis’ has grossly

omitted the FACT that both she and Janette Smith were notified and fully

aware of the nature of the “Counter-complaint” that was filed “on or about

January 14, 20151” Additionally, Appellees’ claim - that it was “Appellant”

(’I)avid'S_chied) that was the one to send the “Su`mmons and Counter-

Complaintsand/or Ct§fosstomplaint” to Appellees Robin Apostolakis and

§_§’3 as the "‘ root ot`Ser.vice” sent by “‘a legally competent adult who is not a

party or an ojicer of a corporate party” who “decla’re[d] under penalty of

perjury ” that she “ha[d] no interest in the outcome of this case and ha[s] no

blood or current marriage relationship to...David Schied"’.

Apostolakis cites Tex.R.Civ.P.- 99, 103 and 106 as reason for claiming

that she was not properly servedv“citation” by the dereliction of the Clerk of the

Court Stan Stanart’s failure to provide the Court’s own citation upon receipt of

Grievant’s documentation naming the co-Appellees. Such dereliction - and the

failure of either the judge or the clerk to notify pro se, sui juris and/Or

forma pauperis Grievant of possible deficiencies in following all court rules

from out-of-state 5 is insufficient justification to establish as a matter of

FACT that these Appellees Apostolakis and Smith were not fully aware of

the proceedings against them, which is the underlying basis for the court

rules in the first place, and is proven as a matter of FACT in the Exh'ibits

referenced herein above. As shown further down in this instant “Resgonse...”

procedure do,es_not trump substantive rig hts-. (B‘old emphasis added)

. DENIED AS QROSSLY MISLEADING AND FRAUDULENT ~. As is

clearly seen in Apostolakis’ “Motion to Dismiss»,"’ she readily admits what

Grievant has made well-known as the basis for this instant “appeal” to the

Texas Court of Appeals: a) that the lower probate court "‘judge” Loyd Wright

failed to honor or even address the precept set by the above-referenced United

States Supreme Court case of “Haines v. Kerner” case allowing “less stringent

standards” for litigants without attorneys; and, b) that the Loyd Wright instead

simply dismissed Grievant’s case summarily without providing constitutional

due process and Grievant’s constitutional right to a jury trial.

Even more significant as reason for Grievant DENYING this statement

of Apostolakis as outright fraudulent is the FACT that the face of the 4/_8/1_5

0rder Granting Motion for No E vidence Summar}g Judg ment of Loyd

v Wright stated that what was dismissed was Grievant’s very first 11/4/14

filing of “Com laint and Brie in Su ort 010 osition to Michael_Ra ._

Merrit?s Application to.P_rob_ate_ Will and for Letters Testimonv” and NOT the

1/14/15 “Summons and Counter-Comglaint__and Cross_-_Cor'nglain ” that is

otherwise falsely claimed to have been summarily dismissed by Wright.

(without litigation of the merits) (See “EXHIBIT _; as a copy of lWright-’s

“0rder.”) (Bold emphasis added)

. DENIED AS FRAUDULENT - Attomey Apostolakis altogether M_i_t_te_d_ the v

FACT that - just before issuing that Scheduling,~Control Order that 3

Apostolakis admitted in her motion as having occurred on 12/19/14 - the

Probate Court #1 held an “emergency hearing” on 12/19/ 14 i_n which the judge

Loyd Wright himself admitted that Appellee Janette Smith was indeed

PRESENT in the courtroom “but not at th[at] point in time participating.”'

(See “EXHIBIT #7” as an authenticated transcript of that hearing as submitted

by sworn Atzidavit of authenticity found on page 10 of “EXHIBIT#S”) Thus,

as explained further in Grievant’s “_ rie .:in,$u ,ort...,” it has been established -

even as it should be reflected in the lower court record - that both Janette Smith

and Robin Apostolakis were fully aware by 12/19/14 of the contents of the _

“compla'int” that was originally filed and served upon.them “in early November

2014.

' . DENIED AS FR_AUD BY GROSS OMISSIONS WITH THE INTENT T 0

DEPRIVE OF SUBSTANTIVE RIGHTS UNDER COLOR OF,TEXAS

CUURT R_ULES - The Evidence shows that, regardless of “judge” Loyd

Wright’s own personal wrongdoing in this situation, the FACT is that Appellee's

Apostolakis and Smith were clearly aware '- at all times 4 of the claims and the

proceedings being brought against them',l both times Grievant presented his

filings to thelower Probate Court #1, first as a_ “Complaint and Ubiection.,.”

and the second time as a "‘Counter-Complaint and/or Cross-§o_mplain_t...”

Clear`ly then, Apos`tolakis is using color of court rules to administratively

undermine the substantial rights of Grievant to the iudicial litigation of the

Lrits of his claims against the Appellees in this case. As' explained more fully

in his “Memoran'dum of Law in Supvort,”(“EXHIBIT#9”) this is a violation

of the Separation of Powers guaranteed by the Constitution of the United States.»

lt is also a federal violation of the-Rules Enabling Act as also addressed in

detail in the attached “Exhtbtt#9”

8. DENIED As BLATANTLY FRAUDULENT _ Clearly, Appellee

Apostolakis expects the Texas Court of Appeals judges to rule upon her bare

assertions, her conclusory statements~, and her fraudulent claims without even

taking judicial notice, much less considering the actual Evidence provided by

Grievant, in similar fashion to what she and her cohort Appellee David Munson

schemed to architect in the lower probate court to criminally deprive Grievant

of his rights under color la'w. (Bold emphasis added)

As shown by' the documents contained in “_E§_(_I_I_I§IT#;Q_,” Grievant had

notified all parties to this case, as well as BOTH the lower “probate’:’and the

lligher “appellaté” court that:

a) There was an appeal of` Loyd Wright’s ruling (“Exhlblt#6”) initiated on

4/30/ 15 when Grievant served the co-Defendant/Appellees, and for which

the lower Ha`rri's County Clerk Stan Stanart acknowledged as having been

filed on 5/12/15 along with Grievant’s “Reauest fo_r Desi,qnation of

Additl'onal Items to Be lncluded in the Of}‘io-ial Court Record”" and Grievant’s

accompanying “Notice of Inaccuracies iri blhe_t_?:rial_,Co,urt_Dooketing Record

.l`rl/Need to Correct Dates of ‘Fill`ng’ and Docu'r`nerlt Ca'ptio'ns.”

b) On 6/11/15, the Clerk of the Court for the Court of Appeals, Fi»rst District

(Christopher Prine) sent notice to Grievant David Schied acknowledging that

the “case was filed in this [higher] court on 5/20/15"’.

c) On 6/12/15, Grievant served his “Briefoprpeal ofHarris Co.untv Probate

Case With Evidence of_Deprivation ofRights to Due Process Under Color of

Aaw-, and Qeni_alofEaual Treat)nent by Judge Loyd Wright of Li,q`.itant

,lfl{ithout_an:Attorney” and that the Texas Court of Appeals clerk Christopher

Pri`ne acknowledged receipt by time-stamped Evidence of that filing on

6/15/ l 5.

Similarly, Appellee Apostolakis’ claim that “[Griev`ant] has failed to pay

the appellate fees or submit proper proof establishing indigence” is blatantly

and criminally fraudulent on bits face. As shown by “EXHIBIT#II,” which is

time-stamped as also received on 5/12/15 along with the original “Notice of

M” (see reference to “Exhtbit#10”above), Grievant had clearly filed his

“Af/idavit of Indigen'c'e and Statement oflnability to fay Court Costs____and F_ees, on

Appeal of Probate Court Rulin,q” which included an accompanying “M” (see

“Exhtbit#.¥” for the timeistamped copies of the cover pages for these two

documents) that was sworn and signed and even labeled as a subsequent “exhi'bit”

in Grievant’s “ rile on AQQea ...” received by the Tean Court of Appeals and

time-stamped on 6/15/15.

Also noted as a matter of significant FACT is that the Texas Cod_e_ of

Appellate Procedures, Rule 20.1\(a)(2) maintains that “establishing indigence” is

“by Affidavit;” and “A party that cannot pay the costs in appellate court may

10

proceed without advanced payment of costs if.' a) the party files an Aj’l`da‘vit of

Indigence. . . ”

Clearly, Appellees Apostolakis and Smith have provided nothing except

bare FRA UDULENT assertions in their claim against Grievant’s “ [Zlda`vit of

'Indigen_cte...” and “ :f[z‘davit” that were clearly time-stamped (see again, “__E__.)_c_h_t_lgg

¢_¢_3_”) by the lower-court before being then also provided to the higher appellate

court; which was afterward “conjirmed” as a matter of official Court of Appeals’

record on 6/15/15». This is shown in i‘F.EXlIlBIT:`#I'ZZ? as a printout of the Court of

Appeals docketing record that was found just after speaking with Christopher Prine

on the phone as reflected in the transcript of that conversation shown in

“EXHIBIT#13” as supported by Grievant’s “Affz`davit of T ruth Authenticating

Accuracv of A udio Transcript, Crirne Report, and O_ther _Do_c_urnents,Proving

‘Domes_ti_c_ _Z__`errorism,""’ and supporting sworn and notarized “ if[zdavit of T ruth

Au_the_nticatin,q Accuracy of A udio Transcript! Crime Report, and Other Docurnents

Proving ‘Dornestic Terrorisrn ’ Being Carried Out Throughout the Court Systen_t

Uperating in the State of Texas_.” (See also “Exhlbtt#13”)

9. DENIED AS GROSSLY MlSLEADING A_ND IRRELEVANT - The

ONLY two “exhibits” that Appellee Apostolakis could possibly find to support

her complete fraudulence upon this Texas Court of Appeals happens to be two

rulings in which Grievant has for the past twelve (15) full years been battling

11

because of domestic terrorist activity occurring in Southeast Michigan and with

the S'i'xth Circuit Court of Appeals judges turning their heads in denial of the

FACTS as they have been fully outlined in this instant Texas Court of Appeals

case in the “A'[Z ldavl” received in the lower court and provided again to this

ll higher Court as “Exhibit B” of Grievant’S filing of “ ’Petition in Motion and

A.ffl`da_v,it,_ofNotice of Incorrect Rec_ord ’ and Need to Correct bv Addition of

Names David Munson and Robin Apostolakis as Co+Appellees”.

The above-referenced filings are docu_ments, as shown in the telephone

conversation of “Exhibit#13” that has, thus far, gone completely ignored by

the Texas Court of Appeals judges, despite that it Was time-stamped and made

a part of the instant COA record as shown in “Exhtbit #123§. (Bold emphasis

added)

As shown in Evi'dence, it is clear that the underlying source of Appellees’

“e)c_hi_l)its_._/_ef and B”’ has been the FRAUDULENT issuance by the Harris County

Court of _an “Earlv Te'r'mination Order Dismissing the Cause” Which, in 1979 was

MISREPRESENTED to Grievant `- by the (now deceased) Judge Joseph Guarino -

to mean that as a matter of `law, Grievant had received a “clean slate” and a

“second chance” at constructive citizenship by “withdrawal of plea,” by “dismissal

of indictment,” and by “set aside of judgment” in 1979. (See “EXmPIT#IS” as a

certified copy of that 1979 document.)

12

.',.;A,

As is explained more fully in Grievant’s “Briefin Supp,ort_'of{Response in

OQQosition...,” Appellees’ “earhibits A and B”r are thus FRAUDULENT on their

face for the_sil_ngle FACT that they each establish and claim of a Texas

criminal “co_.nvi_ction’_’ wherenone exists (i.e., see “EXHIBI _' 5”), and, in

fact, such a final disposition N'EVER existed (since probation is NOT a final

disposition). On the other hand, both “_exhibits A and B"’ are FRAUDULENT

because they significantly contain gross omissions offact that §i_'g_linerous

L__________gafternsvf»crimes have beer ,cqip;fi\_itt¢d_a,ain§_f _§ri¢vant St¢mm_mg from +,as

ex lained in the accom an in

4 - erroneous documents produced bv the Stateof Texas. '

As Appellees’ “exh'ibits A and B” demonstrate just two of the fraudulent

rulings that fail to address the crimes presented on the merits of Earl Hocquard’s

two sworn and notarized Affidavits (found as “EXHIBIT#16” and “EXHIBIT

#_11”), Grievant has documented the underlying methodology of these crimes

against Grievant Schied by the State BAR of Michigan attorneys, the regulatory

agency of the Michigan Supreme Court’s “Judicial Te'nure Comm`ission” and the

“Attorney Grievance Cornrnission,” as well as state and United States judges

altogether disregarding these FACTS and EVIDENCE.

Importantly these actions to deprive Grievant of his rights, his career, his

savings, his integrity, and the “clear slate” promised to him by the late Harris

1_3

County judge Joseph Guarino, reflect the TRUTH of a gen-judicial environment in

Michigan where these crimes have been freely occurring in treasonous pattern and

practice against Grievant.

l()._DENIED AS, GROSSLY_MISLEADING AND_ IRRELEVANT - The

Evidence in the Lower Court Record demonstrates that there is a Q attern and

QL”M going onhere in which ‘_‘judge” Loyd Wright has chosen to “dismiss”

Grievant’s original “Coleaint” While disregarding the proverbial “elephant in

the room” of Grievant’s subsequent filing of' “Counter-Comolaint and/or Qross,_,-

Coranaint” » by which both sets of documents and supporting Exhibits were

clearly “ser-ved” upon the co-Appellees. 4

In the first “Coleaint” the Appellees were listed first as M'ichael Merritt,

Wynde Merritt and Janette Smith; however, after the 12/19/14 “ernergency

hearing” # as shown by the certified transcript of that hearing (“Exhibl

attached herein) whereby Loyd Wright treated the “C_oranaint” as a matter of

record as a mere “objection” requiring Grievant to refile and re.-serve the Appellees

again as a Coun'ter-'Complaint and/or Cross-Complaint” - Grievant clearly

ADDED AND SERVED Robin Apostolakis and David Munson along with the

others (with “service of process” this second time through a disinterested and

unrelated 3rd party) with a plethora of documents that would ensure that they all

14

would become well-acquainted with the FACT that they AIJJ_ had been named as

co-Defendants now “Appellees” in this instant case.

In answer to the remaining fraudulent claims of` Appellee Apostolakis in this

paragraph 9, Grievant incorporatesby reference the entirety of his “answer” as

stated immediately above addressing Appellees’ paragraph 9, as if written herein

verbatim.

CONCLUSION `

W'HEREAS, the exhibits of Evidence cited above and included as attached

references constitute overwhelming Evidence that Grievant has the right NOT to

be dismissed again under color oflaw, lest criminal allegations be levied against

others who, like Loyd Wright, have disregarded and refused to “litigate the merits”

of Grievant’s Statements in Affidavits supported by Such Evidence.

Moreover, the Evidence provided herein is sufficient to demonstrate to the

judge(s_) in review of'this motion “ResQonse,..” and its accompanying “_rl_e@

SuQ_ port of ResQonse...” that the Texas court’S “Earlv Terrnination Order

Dismiss"ing the Cause” of 1979 and subsequent “Ag_r_eed Order;oqutpunction_” a

quarter-century later in 2004, have been repeatedly, intentionally, and criminally

defied for over a decade by certain domestic terrorists presenting themselves as

treasonous Michigan government “actors” who have been tortuously turning a

blind eye to the public dissemination of those Texas court orders.

15

It is noted that the Evidence provided herein, along with the testimony

presented in the Affidavits as explained further in this instant filing, altogether

encumber the Tean Court of Appeals to report these interstate crimes to the proper

federal authorities as Grievant Schied now is doing with his submission of

“E'XHI'B:IT #19” as a formal CR_ll\/IE R_EPORT to the Harris County Prosecutor.

This crime report will be also provided to the Texas and Michigan offices of the

FBI and to the U.S.v Marshalls in both states. As such, the judges in review of this

information \- if they fail to report these crimes to the proper authorities - become

subject to federal criminal prosecution under 18 U.S..C. §4 (“Misprision of

Felony”), while also losing their judicial immunity. Grievant David Schied

i'mplores those in operation of this instant Court of Appeals then to simply do the

right thing to prevent further criminal vict,irnization of Grievant, as required under

the Texas_C_onstitution (Art. I, §30) to take proper action to protect Grievant from

further victimization by the accused

Respectfully submitted,

fe '= n

, ,, ,

“ ' ii /§/

/ ; ii \ /‘§ ' ’

t , 1 - - _»

jj _' f / 1,// /’

” . {// /~‘ l ,//" ,»/;f /= ,, »

//\`/Z;'i;».»rr¢ ,_,/i’:xt‘£ae;> /£'w:fu,,,/,((;€

(all rights reserved) 12/18/1 5

16

swoRN DECLARATioN oF TRUTH '

l declare under penalty ofperjury that the forgoing is true to the best of my

knowledge and beli'ef. If requested,'l will swear in testimony to the accuracy of the

above if requested by a competent court of law and of record. y

Respectfully submitted, David Schied

fits § t 3 P'.O. Box 1378

jr {:§ y;::z:;>? ((`/::/1;, NOVl, Mlchlgan 483 76

§ d<»Mgi{/,,g/§@MWA; 248-974-7703

f y iii (all rights reserved)

David Schied Dated»: 12/18/15

17

IN THE FIRST COURT OF APPEALS

O_F THE STAT'_E OF TEXAS IN HARRIS COUNTY

In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied,

David Schied,

D'ecea_se'd

Interested Party Plaintiff/

VS

Principal Co-Heir

FlLED |N

ISTCOURTOFAPPEALS

HOUSTOAL?EXAS

DEC 2 3 2015

cHRlsToPHEa A. PRiNE

CLERK

'f__'_`___

Case No. 434875

“Judge” Loyd Wright

Michael Merritt (named ‘€executor”) and Wynde»Merritt (“co-executor” by

Janette Renee Sm`ith

Robin Apostolakis

David Munson

Co-Defendants

proxy)

GRIEVANT DAVID SCHIED’S ‘»‘BRIEF IN SUPPORT

oF`RESPoNsE“INoPPosITIoN AND DENIAL” To

“JANETTE sMITH’s AND RoBIN AP'osToLAKIs’ ‘MoTIoN To DIsMIss”"

BASED UPoN CRIMINAL FRA Ul) UPoN THE LoWER COURT AND THE

TExAs COURT oF APPEALS

AND REFUSAL oF EITHER COURT To PRoPERLY RESPOND To

INTERLOCUTORY AND FINAL JUD.GMENT APPEALS

oR To EVEN HoNoR PREVIOUS NOTICES AND REQUES'TS FoR

DESIGNATION oF ADDITIONAL ITEM(s)To BE INCLUI)ED IN THE oFFICIAL

CoURT REcoRD oR To CoRREcT DocUMENTED INACCURACIES IN THE

TRIAL COURT ‘-‘DoCKETING” RECoRDs

/

David Schied - Sui'Juris

P,O. Box 1378

Novi, Michigan 48376

248-347-16844

_Je'annet_te Smith - co.-benefic'iary

and Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney

Gaunte, Earl, & Binney, LLP

14100 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.575

The Woodlands, Texas 77380

281 -367-6555

Jeannette Smith - co-beneficiary

203 McNair St.

Pea Ridge, Arkansas 72751

479-451‘-8692

Michael (named executor) and

Wynde Merritt (executor by proxy)

and David A. Munson

2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200

The Woodlands, Texas 77380

281-210-.3467

Michael Merritt and Wynde Merritt

8526 Hot Sp`rings Dr.

Houston, Texas 77095

281-855;27]4

713-430-6286

TABLE ()F _CON_TENTS

Summary and statement of the Fa_cts proving the “background”

proffered by Texas attorney Robin Apostilakis is intentional

“Fraud upon the Court”.,.._ ...................... _ ..... ¢. 1

There is mounds of Evidence of the fraud by App.ellees Smith and

Apostolakis, as well as the “]`udge’? Wright as “aiding and

abetting” i_n the two attorneys’ (Munson’ and Apostolakis’)

criminal conspiracy to deprive of rights ..................................................... 3

The rulings presented by Appellees as “exhibits A &VB” are blatantly

fraudulent, and Evidence of treason and domestic terrorism .................. 1 1‘ '

Argument ..................... ' ......... l .............. 15

Conclusion .......................................... _ .................................................... ...... 22

Sworn Declaration ofTruth ................ ............. ..... _..25

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

TE_XAS

Texas Constitution (Art. I, §30) ................................. t ................................. 24=25

Attorney General Dan Morales (DM~349) ......... t ....... - ....... » ........ - 13

Attorney General John Cornyn’s Opinion (JC-()396) ....................................... 13

Tean Code of Appellate Procedures, Rule 20.1(a)(2) ..................................... 10

TeX.R.`Civ.P. 99, 103 and 106 ................... ...... .. ......... ....... l 16

FEDERAL

18 U.S.C. §4 (“Misprision of F elony”) ............................................................ 24

ii

Haines v Kerner, _

404US. 519 (1972) ..................................... ' ............................................... 16- 17

OTHER

Weaver, Justice Elizabeth_. Judicial Deceit.' Tvrannv and

Unnecessarv Secrecv at the Michigan Supreme Court..7 ............... ~ ......... 21

iii

v 7 SUMMARY AND STATEMENT OF THE FACTS

BROVIN(_}, THE ‘_‘Background_’.?vPROFF_ERED BY TQ(ASHATTORNE_.Y

.ROBIN AP,O_STOLA.KISWIS,INTEN_TIONAL,“FRA UD_ UPUN THE CQURT’?

In common law and statutory law alike,- the intent of proceedings is to arrive

at the underlying TRUTH of matters involving controversy, and to bring forth a

judicial solution based upon a truthful representation of the underlying FACTS.- ln

this case, Appellee Robin Apostolakis has done just the opposite under color 01

IM while acting on behalf of herself and Janette Smith to deprive

Grievant/Appellant (“Grievant"’) David Schied of his due process rights and his

day owed in court. As an “officer of the court,” this is both reprehensible and

CRIMINAL.

Appellee Apostolakis’ filing, which she fraudulently “certified” to this Court

of Appeals “was served on the following individuals and/or parties to this lawsuit

via facsimile, first class mail, certified mail, return receipt requested and/or

electronically” WAS NEVER SER VED UPON GRIEVANT. In M, the filing

Was never even known~about byforma pauperis Grievant David Schied - who

is waived from filing electronically and was never delivered the documents bv

firs.t__class,_maila certified mail or_any _oth'er_metho_d_ - until _12/_1/, 15 when

Grievant spoke with the Texas Court of Appeals Clerk Christopher Prine by

phone about the lack of activity on Grievant’s own filings of various

“pe`titions,” interlocutory appeal, and appeal of` judgment (Bold emphasis)

Meanwhile, Appellee Apostolakis appears to'base her "‘motion” action upon

her own admission to her client and herself having received certain documents sent

to them § M the lower court’s 12/19/15 hearing - but claiming that it was

Grievant that was the one whoj failed to properly “serve” each of them with the

refiling of a “Counter-co<mglaint” by use of thev United States mail delivery of a 3“i

party package sent to them in Tex'as from Mich`igan. Moreover, and even more

significantly is Apostolakis’ “lying by omission” about prior service of

Grievant’s "‘Com"Q,la'int” (i.e., see “EXHIBIT#I” as proof of service) at the time

When Grievant first filed that initial document, and then outright lying by

claim that neither she nor Janette Smith had “-ma[d]e an appearance in the

lower court proceedings.”’

This instant filing by Grievant, sent in TIMELY response to having only

recently found out that Smith’s and Apostolakis’ fraudulent “motion to dismiss”

even existed, is to refute the statements digitally signed by Appellee, the Texas

attorney Apostolakis, and prove that Apostolakis’ statements were criminally

intended to defraud this Court and to t_l_eM Grievant David Schied ¢_)f his

rlth to due process under color of law and/or Texas “rules of procedure”

regarding the Estate of Grievant’s blood brother of 18 month separation, Michael

Edward Schied,

THERE IS MOUN!)S OF l_§VIDEN¢C'E OF'_f`HE_ FRA UQ BY APPELLEE_S

SMITH AND APOSTOLAKIS. AS WELL AS THE “JUDGE” WRIGHT AS

“AIDING AND ABETTING” IN THE TW`O ATTORNEYS’ (MUNSON’ AND

APOSTOLAKIS’) CRIMINAL CONSPIRA CY T 0 DEPRIVE OF RIGHTS

In DENIAL of Apostolakis’ gross omission of the FACT that both she and

Janette Smith were notified and fully aware of the nature of the “Complaint” that

Grievant had initially filed in the corruQ' t Harris County Probate Court # l , pro se

and/or sui juris Grievant submits “Exhlblts#l"and:#d” which includes a COPY Of

the “Proo[ of Service” and delivery confirmations from the United States Post

Office. “Exhtblts#l and #4” shows that on 11/4/14 Janette Smith, Michael

Merritt', Robin Apostolakis, and David Munson were all served with the

“Complaint and Brief in Support of Opposition to lldi'chae.l Rav Merritt ’s

Application to Probate Will and for Letters Testimon'v” after Apostolakis had

written his letter over two months earlier in claim that the decedent Michael

Edward Schied’s Last Will and Testament was “invalid” and “unenforceable.”

(See “EXHIBIT#Z” for a copy of that letter.) As is clearly shown by Appellee

Apostolakis’ own letter, Apostolakis readily admitted to “representing” Janette

Smith in this instant probate case, even prior to the case being filed and

served upon both Appellees Smith and Apostolakis by Grievant Schied. (Bold

emphasis) y

In DENIAL of Apostol_aki,s" gross omission of the FACT that both she and

Janette Smith w_ere served with various “motions” that they otherwise chose to

3,

ignore (except for Janette §_rnith to attend Grievant’s “emergency motion” hearing

on_ 121/19/14), Grievant submits “Exhtbtt#4”) as “certificates of service” on the

¢@Motian for_Default./udgment” and subsequent “Moti'on for.Eme_rgencv_IjIearing’,

when Appellee Janette.Smith failed to “answer” the ComQ` laint.

Grievant DENIES Apostolakis’ gross omission of the FACT that both she

and Janette Smith were notified and fully aware of the nature of the “Coun`ter-.

complaint” that was filed “on or about January 14_, 2015 .” Appellees’ claim that it

was “Appellant” (David Schi_ed) that was the one - not a disinterested third

party - to send the “Summons and_C_ountcr-__Complaint and/or_Cross:

Comp'laint,” is clearly fraudulent. In Evidence thereof, Grievant submits herein

a party or an officer of a corporate party, ” who “declare[d] under penalty of

perjury” that she “ha[d] no interest in the outcome of this case and ha[s] no blood

l ` or current marriage relationship to...David Schied”; and who affirmed under

penalty of perjury that she had “issued service” also of the following

document:

“S_worn and Notari_zed _Aftidavi_t oflnterested Par_tv Plaintiff/Co-Heir

David Schied Affirming Truth in Depicted Content and Certi/ving_ the

Previous Deliverv of All Evidence to Co-Defendants Michael Merritt

and Jannette Smith as Referenced bv the ./fccompanving Counter-

Com'p`laint... ’ and ‘Formal Joinder.. ’ and as Referenced b`v the

Previ`ouslv-Filed Complaint and Brief in Support of

Opposition.. Motion for Order to Show Cause and to Compel

Documents... That Had also Been Previouslv Delivered to Mchael

4

Merritt, Jannette Smith, and T heir Respective Attornevs_ ofRo_b_in

Apostolakis and David Munson in Earlv' Novernber 2014 .”

Another significant reason for Grievant DEN YING Apostolakis’ claims as

outright wl is the FACT that the face of the 4/7/ 15 Order Granting Motion for

No Evidence Summarv Judgment of Loyd Wright stated that what he had

dismissed was Grievant’s very first 11/4/14 filing of “Complaint and Brie[ in

Support of 0pposition to Michael Rav Merrit’s Application to Probate Will and

for Letters Testimonv”_ and _N_Q__'l_` the 1/14/15 “Summons and Counter-

Comglaint and CrossiComplain ” that Apostolakis is otherwise falsely claiming

to have been summarily dismissed by Wright. (without litigation of the merits) l

(See “EXHIBIT#6” as a copy of Wright’s “order.”) (Bold emphasis added)

As yet an additional matter of Fact, this 4/7/15 QM was NEVER even sent

by the lower Probate Court to Grievant David Schied, despite Grievant having

numerous documents in Evidence (not submitted here) that the Court was fully

aware and constructively granted by repeated acquiescence to Grievant having

properly filed motions _ with reference to Local Court Rules allowing for waiver

l Thu's, this invalid and fraudulently written “order” by Loyd Wright was executed

in his individual capacity by simple the administrative action of “granting” a

motion without any judicial justification and while in gross malfeasance and

criminal dereliction of his duty to consider other documents Grievant had filed

into the record. Clearly, in light of the surrounding Evidence, Wright’s action was

one of misconduct and prejudicial favor to fellow member(s) of his State BAR,

giving credence to only the oversimplified filing of the attorney Munson who was

also criminally misrepresenting his client as the “defendant” in open court and

even as attorney Munson had a sworn O_a_th of integrity as an “officer of the co'urt.-”

5

of E-'filing requirements for pro`se litigants = fur waiver of E‘+filing and otherwise

requiring both the Court and the opposing parties to “serve” documents to Grievant

through the “zmduto~nar’ method ofthe U.s. Mail.

Attorney Apostolakis altogether Ml the FACT that - just before

issuing thatScheduling. Order that Apostolakis admitted inher motion as having

occurred on 121/1 9/14 -the Probate Court #1 held an “emergency hearing” on

12/1 9/ 14 in which the judge Loyd Wright himself admitted that Appellee Janette

Smith was indeed PRESENT int the courtroom “'b_ut not at th[at] point in time

particlpating.” (See “EXHIBIT#T’ as an authenticated transcript of that hearing '

as submitted by sworn w of authenticity found on page 10 of “EXHIBIT

§§”) Thus, as explained further in Grievant’s “Briet in Squ ort...~,~’§ it has been

established - even as it should be reflected in the lower court record - that both

Janette Smith and Robin Apostolakis were fully aware by 12`/19/ 14 of the contents

of the “complaint” that was originally filed'a'nd served upon them “i'n early

November 2014.."’-

4 The Evidence shows that, regardless of"‘judge” Loyd Wright’s- own personal

wrongdoing in this situation, the FACT is that Appellees Apostolakis and Smith

were clearly aware -= at all times - of the claims and the proceedings being brought

against them, both times Grievant presented his filings to the lower Probate Court

#1, first as a “Complaint andaijection...‘” and the second time as a "‘Counter-

Cornplaint and/or Cross-Complaint...”

Cle'arly then, Apostolakis is using color of court rules to administratively

undermine the substantial rights of Grievant to the iudicial litigation of the merits

of his claims against the Appellees in this case._ This is a violation of both the l

S_ep_arat‘ion_of,P,owers guaranteed by the Constitution ofthe United States, and

mandated for each of the united States. (The judiciaryis forbidden by its guarantee

of “independence” from influence or control of the other branches to both

‘~‘legislate"’ its own rules and to then adjudicate those rules without it becoming an

_Article l administrative action’rather than an Article 111 judicial action, as the

former affords no judicial immunity.) lt is also a federal violation of the Ru_les

Enabling Act as addressed in detail in the attached f‘EXHIBIT'i'#9” as Grievant’s _

wholly relevant to this case “Memorandum of Law."’

Cleariy, Appellee Apostolakis expects the Texas Court of Appeals judges to

rule upon her bare assertions, her conclusory__statements, and her fraudulent ciaims '

without even taking judicial notice, much less considering the actual Evidence v

provided by Grievant, in similar fashion to what she and her cohort Appellee

David Munson schemed to architect in the lowerprobate court to criminally

deprive Grievant of his rights under color law. (Bold emphasis added)

The simple Facts of Evidence show: a) Apostolakis’ claim on 9/2/15 that

Grievant’s notice of “Appeal did not state the court to which the Appeal was

taken” is blatantly fraudulent On one hand, it is clear that Grievant has no control

over the judiciary of Texas and the system in place “to” which specific “Court of

Appeals” court that appeals from Harris County lower court decisions are assigned

by the Texas_judiciary. The “appellate” process otherwise inferred is that

“appeals” of rulings of courts in Houston of Harris County simply go to the Texas

Court of Appeals located also in Houston of Harris County.

As shown by the documents contained in “EXHIBIT#10,” Grievant had

notified,,all parties to this case, as well as BOTH the lower “probate” and the

higher “appellate” court that:

a) There was an appeal of Loyd Wright’s ruling (“Exht ._ ), which was

initiated on 4/30/15 when Grievant served the co-Defendant/Appellees»; and

for which the lower Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart acknowledged as

having been filed on 5/12/15 along with Grievant’s “Request for Designation

ofAdditi`onal Items to Be Included in the Of/icial Court Record” and

Grievant’s accompanying “Notice oflnaccuracies in the Trial Court

Docketing Re_cord in Need to Correct Dates of ‘Filing ’_ and Document

Cap_tions.”

b) On 6/11/15, the Clerk of the Courtlfgr_ the Court of App'eals, First District

(Christopher Prine) sent notice to Grievant David Schied acknowledging that

the “case was filed in this [higher] court on 5/20/15”.

c) On 6/12/15, Grievant served his “Brief of Appeal of Harris County Probate

Case With Evidence of Deprivation of Rights to Due Process Under Color of

Aaw, and Denial OfEaual Treatment _bv Judge L__ovd Wright of Ligitan_t

Without_ an Attorne,y” and that the Texas Court of Appeals clerk Christopher

Prine acknowledged receipt by time~stamped Evidence of that filing on

6/ l 5/ l 5.

Similarly, Appellee Apostolakis’ claim that “[Grievant] has failed to pay

the appellate fees or submit proper proof establishing indigence” is blatantly

and criminally fraudulent on its ,f`ace. As shown by “EXHIBIT#II,” which is

time-stamped as also received and time-stamped on 5/12/15 along With the original

“Notice ot App" ea ” (see reference to “Exhtbtt#10” above), Grievant had clearly

filed his “Affidevil 'Oflndif€"_€,e,end Stat€aeet-_Qflee!zilitv 10 Pav_ _CQW-,;<§Q,st_eed

fees on Appeal_ ofl_’_robat_e__ _Co_urt Ruling,” which included an accompanying

“Afttdavit” (see i‘fE.iellib"it?:/#'S§_?; for the time-stamped copies of the cover pages for

these two documents) that was sworn and signed and even labeled as la subsequent

“exhibit” in Grievant’s “ riet on AQQ eal...” received by the Texas Court of

Appeals and time-stamped on 6/15/15.

Also noted as a matter of significant FACT is that the Texa-s_Code of

Appellate Procedures, Rule 20.1fa)(2) maintains that “establishing indigence” is

“by A]fidavit;” and “A party that cannot pay the costs in appellate court may

proceed without advanced payment of`costs if.' a) the party files an Ajfidavit of

Indigence...” Clearly, Appellees-` Apostolakis and Smith have provided nothing

except bare FRA UDULENT assertions in their claim against Grievant’s “At"tldavit

of Indigence...” and “__f`fi@t” that were clearly time-stamped (see _again, “M

_#Q”) by the lower court before being then also provided to the higher appellate

c.ourt; which was afterward “confirmed” asa matter of official Court of Appeals’

record on 6/15/15. This is shown by “EXHIBIT#IZ” as' a printout of the Court of

Appeals docketing record that was found just after speaking with Christopher Prine

on the phone as reflected in the transcript of that conversation shown in

“EXHIBIT#13” as supported by Grievant’s “Aft_ldavit 01 Truth Authenticating

Accuracv of A udio Tra`nscript, Crime Report, and Other Do_cuments_Pro_ving

‘Domestic Terrorism "" and supporting sworn and notarized “ tildavit ot Truth

Authenticating:/fccuracv ofA udio t Trans_cript, Crime Report, and Other Documents

Provingr ‘Domestic Terrorism ’ Being Carried Out Throug_hout the,__Co:urt‘Svs_tem

Operating in the State of Texas.” (See also “Exhtbtt#13”)

The ONLY two “exhibits” that Appellee Apostolakis could possibly find to

support her complete fraudulence upon this Texas Court of Appeals happens to be

10

two rulings in which Grievant has for the past twelve (15) full years been battling

because of domestic terrorist activities occurring in Southeast Michigan and with

the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals judges turning their heads in denial of the

FACTS as they have been fully outlined in this instant Texas Court of Appeals

case in the “1_{1»_”[[_,__:idavit~l" received in the lower court and provided again to this

higher Court as “Exhibit B” of Grievant’s filing of “ ’Petition in Motion.and

Af[idavit ofNotice oflncorrect Record ’ and Need to Correct bv Ada’ition ofNames

1_)_avid Munson and Robin Apostolakis as Co-Appellees”.

The above-referenced document, as shown in telephone conversation of

“E.ir`hibit`#l$’§ has, thus far, gone completely ignored by the Texa_s Court of

Appeals j'udges, despite that it was time-stamped and made a part of the

instant COA record as shown in “Exhibtt#IZ,” as also authenticated by sworn

and notarized statement submitted to this Court under penalty of perjury.

(Bold emphasis added) l

THE `RULING_S PRESENTED BY APPELLEES_ AS ‘_‘1_5`_XHIBITS A .&. B”

___________,_____AR`E`BLAN'TANTLY FRA UDULENT .AN.D EVI_DE_NC_E Q;F

TREASON AND DOMESTIC TERRURISM

As shown in Evidence,'it is clear that the underlying source of Appellees’

“exhibits A and B” has been the FRAUDULENT issuance by the Harris County

Court of an “E_arlvTermination _O_rder_Qismiss_ing the Cause” which, in 1979 was

MISREPRESENTED to Grievant'_ by the (now deceased) Judge Joseph Guari`no -

11

to mean that as a matter of law, Grievant_had received a “clean slate” and a

“second chance” at constructive citizenship by "withdrawal of plea,” by “dismissal

of indictment`,” and by “set aside ofjudgment” in 1979. (See “EXHIBIT#IS” as a

certified copy of that 1979 document.)

In the alternative, the FRAUDULENCE of Appellee Robin Apostolakis’

“exhibits A and B”7 are the result of the dereliction of duty, the gross negligence,

and the malfeasance of the Harris County 18?>'“l District Court and the Texas

Department of Public Safety to update criminal history database to reflect judicial

rulings and executive clemency.y These are records which Harris County’s 183rd

District Court and the Texas l)epaitment of Public Safety had, over the course of a

quarter century since 1979 and 1983 respectively, disregarded both the “judicial”

clemency and “executive” clemency documents received by Grievant determining

7 v that his NON-FINAL DISPOSITION of ‘Y)robation” in 1974 - as recommended

by a jury of We, T he People ~ had terminated early (1979) with a “wit_}_zdrayyal not

M,"’ with a “di;_snjissai_ of_indic.tn_ient,” and W`ith~a “set aside of judgment.”

(Underline'd emphasis added)

Appel_lees’ “e_x_hibitsA and B” are. thus FRAUDULENT on their face for

the simple FACT that they each establish and claim of a Texas criminal

conviction where none otherwise exists (i.e;, see “EXmBITa#lS”), and, in fact,

such a final disposition NEVER existed (si,nce probation is NOT a final

12

disposition). On the other hand, both ‘-‘exlzibitsA and B” are FRAUDULENT

because they significantly contain gross omissions of fact that numerous

' atterns,_of,cr_imes. have be,en_committed_a ainst_Grievant stemmin from

erroneous documents nrod'uced,bv the S,tate,ofiTexas.

Grievant’s sister, Appellee Janette Smith, has long known that Grievant was

rendered a pauper after the first several years of exhausting all of his finances

fighting the aftermath of the M CORRUPT Michigan Judiciary had

chosen in 2006 to interpret Texas laws in such a way as to DENY FULL

FAITH AND CREDIT to former Texas» At-tornev Gen'eral Dan Morales gDM-

§§g_) which had affirmed that such a “se¢ aside” (Exh¢ 11#14”) as the one

received by Grievant David Schied in 1979 meant “-no conviction exists;” and

the former Texas Attorney General John Cornyn’s Opinion gJC-0396'} which

affirmed that anyone with such a set aside as the one received by Grievant

David Schied was not even eligible for a governo_r’s full pardon “for lack of an

object” to pardon; but in which Grievant Schied had received such a _E_\l_H

w as “executive clemency” in 1983 (as inferred in the “expungement”

document of “Exhlblt#17”) on top of the 1979 set aside as “judicial clemency,”

J ust as importantly is the FACT that the State of Michigan judiciary, as well

as the Michigan Attomey Gen`eral and various county prosecutors _. and the federal

courts - have all disregarded the additional FACT that, not only did the Michigan

13

judiciary misinterpret Texas laws governing these varied forms of clemency, but

also disregarded the Evidence that a school district employer (i.e., Sandra

Harris of the Lineoln Consolidated School District)' had placed an erroneous

N;ONPUBLiC 2003 FBi report into school district’s PUBLIC personnel file

WITHOUT honoring Grievant’s right to “challenge and correet” M

erroneous FBI report stemming from wrongful information being

disseminating from the State of ~Te)ias’Denartment of P_ublic,"Safetv.

Moreover, that Michigan judiciary and the Michigan Attorney General also

intentionally ignored notices that so too had the second school district officials

(i.e., David Bolitho, Leonard Rezmierski and Katy Doerr~Parker of the

Northville bublic Scho_ols) placed a NONPUBLIC 2004 Texas judgment of

“;igreed 0rder of Expunction” in to their P‘UBLIC personnel files.

Most importantly, the Evidence shows that the Michigan judiciary and the v

Michigan Attomey General were fully informed that BOTH school districts

(Lincoln and Northville) disseminating those erroneous documents stemming from

Texas, to other school district officials, were doing so in an overt political effort to

assert the abuse their government power. Such Evidence pertains to a class action

case that wasl going on in the Michigan Court of Appeals in 2003 when Grievant

first arrived to Michigan with his family and was just beginning to be victimized

by Michigan school district officials, Michigan BAR attorneys, Michigan circuit

14

court judges, Michigan county prosecutors in two counties, and the “assistants” to

the Michigan Attomey General. That class action case involved other systemic

abuses by the Michigan Department of Education “Supe`rintendent” Michael

Flanagan, who was then accused of having constructed and disseminated to all

school di_stricts, a master “list” of so-called “convicted schoolteachers""..,»..without

first verifying the accuracy of the information on that list. (Bold emphasis)

The Michigan Court of Appeals similarly dismissed that case (known as

“Eric C. Frohriep and AAll Others Similarly Situa`ted v. Michael P. Flanagan` et a‘l”)

in 2008 F corrag"_;tl}g - so to protect those of their peer group of other government

official of the State, That ruling, along with the Michigan Court of Appeals’

“unpublished” ruling in Grievant’s case(s), which were never actually

“litigated on the merits,"’ have resulted in the egregious and unlawful

COERCION of public policy,-`and a continuation of that treason and domestic

terrorism.

Thus, there leaves the only conclusions the government of Michigan has '

been taken over by domestic terrorists who are committing treason. It appears

to be the case here in Texas too` with the overwhelming Evidence collected by

Grievant David Schied - as already in the lower and higher court records -

that Loyd Wright and his cohort Stan Stanart as¢“clerk of the cour ” have

committed serious FRAUD upon the public and upon this Court of Appe'als,

15

along with Texas State BAR attorneys, the App'el',le'es, Robin Apostolakis and 4

David Mu'nso`n-.

____.ARGUMENT

As is clearly seen in Appellee Apostolakis’ “Motion to Dismiss,” she readily

admits what Grievant has otherwise made well-known as the basis for this instant

“appeal” to the Texas Court of Appeals: a) that the lower probate court “judge”

Loyd Wright failed to honor-or even address the precept set by the above-

referenced United States Supreme Court case of “Haines v. Kerner” case allowing '

“less stringent standards” for litigants without attorneys; and, 'b) that the Loyd

Wright instead simply dismissed Grievant’s case summarily without providing

constitutional due process and'Gri_evant’s constitutional right to a jury trial.

Apostolakis cites TeX.R,Civ.P. 99, 103 and 106 in her ~“Motion_to Qis)nis_s”

a_s reason for claiming that she was not properly served “citation,” which was

caused by the dereliction of the Clerk of the Court Stan Stanart’s failure to provide

the Court’s own citation upon receipt of Grievant’s documentation naming the co-

Appellees. Such dereliction _' and the failure of either the judge or the clerk to

notify pro se, sui juris and/or forma pauperis Grievant of possible deficiencies

in his following ali court rules from out-of-state is insufficient justification for

Apostolakis attempting to establish as a matter of fact th_at`these App'el_lees

16

Apostolakis and Smith were not fully aware of the proceedings against them,

when that was clearly not the cas|e.l ~

What IS the case is serves that underlying basis for establishing the court

rules in the first place - that the parties be fully informed of the claims against

them and be provided a fair opportunity to respond - and this case is proven as a

matter of FACT in the Exhibits referenced herein above. As shown by the

“Memorandtirn ofLaw in Supnort....” presented in “E.rhiliii§ii.§z§ of this “ResQonse

in Opnosition and Denial...” procedure does not trump substantive ri_gM. (Bold

emphasis added)

lt is also a well-established Fact that pro se Coleaints are to be held "‘to

less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers” |i_'~Iauines_,iz_.__y

Kemer~ 404 U.s. 519 (1972)]. The simple FACT is that state of Texas BAR

attorney Apostolakis - as well as her accompanying BAR member David

Munson and the so-called “judge” Loyd Wright § has all along been using y

color of law and procedure to criminally deprive Grievant - as well as attorney

Apostolakis’ own client, Appellee Janette Smith - to the expedient resolve of

these proceedings, and the entitlement of this blood brother and sister to their

respective “day in court,” so that Grievant Schied can prove Apostolakis’

fraudulent written claim (“Exhlbit#Z”) that the __L__ast_Will and Testament of

Michael Edward Schied is “invali'd” and “unenforceable.”_

17

The Evidence in the Lower Court Record demonstrates that there i_s a Q¢attern

and practice going on here in which “judge” Loyd Wright has chosen to “dismiss”

Grievant’s original “Coleaint” while disregarding the proverbial “elepha`nt in the

ro`om” of Grievant’s subsequent filing of “Counter-Complaint and/or Cross-

Coleaint"’ ~ by which both sets of documents and supporting Exhib_its were

clearly “served” upon the co-Appellees.

ln the first “_ComQ,laint” the Appellees were listed first as Michael Merritt,

Wynde Merritt and Janette Smith; however, after the 12/19/14 “emergency

hearing” - as shown by the certified transcript of that hearing (“Exhlblt#7”

attached herein) whereby Loyd Wright treated the “Coleaint” as a matter of

record as a mere “objection” requiring Grievant to refile and re-serve the Appellees

again as a Counter;Comnlaint,;and/or _Cross;ComI)laint” - Grievant clearly added

AND SERVED Robin Apostolakis and David Munson along with the others (with

“service of process” this second time through a disinterested and unrelated 3rd

party) with a plethora of documents that would ensure that they all would become

well-acquainted with the FACT that they M had been named as co-Defendants

now “Appellees” in this instant case.

_ For those like Appellee Apostolakis, and apparently her client and associate

Appellee Janette Smith, who wish to claim that Grievant David Schied “is a

prolificjiler and litigant” who “has been warned tlzat filing certain claims will

18

result in sanctions and he has chosen to ignore that warning,” Grievant has only to

submit .F§EXHIBIT #16” AND “EXHIBIT#17” as Evidence that such

"‘warnings” have come from domestic terrorists masquerading as state and

federal judges that have NEVER “litigated” or otherwise addressed the

contents and significance of these two exhibits.

“Exhlblt#lo” is captioned the “Aftidavit ofEarl Hocauard,” a 5-page

Affidavit followed by nine (9) certified documents of Evidence showing that as of

2009 - six years after terminating Grievant’s employment while denying him his .

otherwise guaranteed right to challenge and correct an erroneous FBI report

stemming from the derelictionof the Harris County 183rd District Court and the

Texas Dept. of Public Safety - the business office administrators of the Lincoln

Consolidated School District are responding to public FOIA requests by

dissemination of the 2003 FBI report which wrongfully showed a status of

“conv'iction” and disposition of “probation” a quarter-century after the 183rd

District Court “judge” Joseph Guarino had issued to Grievant judicial

clemency and misrepresented to Grievant that he then had a “clean slate” for

the future. (Bold emphasis added)

“Exhtblt#17” is also captioned the "‘Affidavit ofEarl Hocauard,” except it

is a 5-page Affidavit followed by five (5) sets of certified documents showing that l

as of 2009 '- five years after earning two honorable letters of recommendation from

19

supervisory school principals while employed as a substitute teacher at the

Northville Public School District, the administrators of that school district were

also responding to FOIA requests from the public by disseminating through

the mail the NONPUBLIC Texas Court order, the “ greed Order of

Exgunction” which on the face of page 2,- paragraph l clearly states, “-all

release, dissemination or use of the records pertaining to such arrest and

prosecution is PROHIBITED.” (Bold emphasis added)

The Evidence is clear: for the past 13 years-, BOTH school districts in

Michigan have been maintaining the erroneous FBI document and Texas

"‘{_1g_reed _Ord_er:of§xpunction”' in their public personnel files, and

disseminating them publicly under FOIA response while DEFRAUDING the

courts in claim that they are justified in depriving Grievant of his rights to

privacy under color 0[ law. These actions all constitute criminal misdemeanors as

violations of both Texas and Michigan legislative statutes, as well as federal

crimes. The cover-up of these »“predicate” crimes constitute FELONY

RACKETEERING AND CORRUPTION. The continuance of this “M

and gractice” by officers of the court, by judges, prosecutors, and the attorney

generals, constitutes Treason and Domestic Terrorism. (Bold emphasis added)

As Appellees’ “exhil)its A and B” demonstrate just two of the fraudulent

rulings that fail to address the crimes presented on the merits of Earl Hocquard’s

20

two sworn and notarized Affidavits, Grievant has documented the underlying

methodology of these crimes by the State BAR of Michigan attorneys, the

regulatory agency of the Michigan Supreme Court’s “Judicial Tenure

Commission” and the “Attorney Grievance Conzm_ission,” as well as state and

United States judges altogether disregarding these FACTS and EVIDENCE.

Importantly these actions to deprive Grievant of his rights, his career, his

savings, his integrity, and the “clear slate” promised to him by former Harris

County judge Joseph Guarino, reflect the TRUTH of a non-judicial environment in

Michigan where a former Michigan Supreme Co.u_rt judge (Di_ane Hathaway) went

to federal prison in 2012 while another (Eliz_abeth Weave_r) resigned and wrote the

book, “Judicial Deceit." TVrannv and Unnecessary Secrecy at_the` Michigan

SuQreme Court;” and in a county location where a fiscal “ tate of Emergency ”'ha`S

been issued for the “Charter County of Wa'yne” where most of these crimes are

occurring and from whence many of the most corrupt judges'of the state either are,

or have been previously employed.;

Thus, there leaves the onlvrco‘nclusion: the government of Michigan has

been taken over by “domestic terrorists” Who are committing Treason; and it

appears to be the case here in Texas too with the overwhelming Evidence

collected by Grievant David Schied - as already in the lower and higher court

records - that Loyd Wright and his cohort Stan Stanart as “cl'e_rk of the court”

21

- have committed serious FRAUD upon the public and upon this Court of

Appeals, along with Tean State BAR attorneys, the Appellees, Robin

Apostolakis and David Munson.

CONCLUSION

WHEREAS, the exhibits of Evidence cited above and included as attached

references constitute overwhelming Evidence that Grievant has the right NOT to

be dismissed again under color of law, lest`criminal allegations be levied against

others who, like Loyd Wright, have disregarded and refused to “litigate the merits”

of Grievant’s Statements in Affidavits supported by such Evidence.

Moreover, the Evidence provided herein is sufficient to demonstrate to the

judge(s) in review of this motion ‘»‘ltesgonse..,."’ and its accompanying "‘;ie_fi_n

.S_'_uQ Qort of ResQonse...” that the Texas court’s “Earlv Termination Order

Dismissing the Cau`s`e” of 1979 and subsequent “_Agreed Order of Ex'p'unction” a

quarter-century later in 2004-, have been repeatedly, inte'ntionally, and criminally

defied for over a decade'by certain domestic terrorists presenting themselves as

treasonous Michigan government “actors” who have been tortuously turning a

blind eye to the public dissemination of those Texas court orders.

Underscoring the egregiousness of those crimes, being blatantly committed

by numerous Michigan judges, is “EXHIBIT#IS” This exhibit consists of

excerpted pages from a summary hearing on Grievant’s first circuit court case

22

against Northville Public School District, in which Grievant’s attorney had been

merely requesting that the judge have'the school district administrators simply

return and/or destroy_the Texas "A greed Order of Ex'punction” in accordance with

the email Evidence showing that promise being made multiple times over- the

course of the year that it took for the State of Texas to finally correct their records

and for a new FBI report to be issued to properly reflect “no conviction” and a

“clean slate” as had been promised a quarter-century earlier by Harris County

District Court judge Joseph Guarino.

The excerpted pages of *‘Exhtbit#lB” shows clearly the flagrant b

contempt that the Michigan judge Cynthia Diane Stephe'ns had for the

judiciary of the State of Texas when ruling that “ITexas] Erxp_ungem,e_ntsvare_a

M’ and that, by her own interpretation of the -“intent” of the Michigan

legislature, an “expunged [Texas/ conviction 3 is a lifetime offense [in

2 This statement itself is a misnomer given the FACT that both the Texas

“_greed Order of Expunction” and the Texas laws supporting that court

Order'both clearly state that what is being “expunge¢f’ is all remaining

records related to the arrest and prosecution. This is because, as

demonstrated by the two Texas Attorney General opinions referenced, as well

as a plethora of state and federal case law, once receiving EITHE_R a

“discretionary” type of set aside such as the one received by Grievant Schied in

1979 OR a governor’ s Full Pardon and Restoratlon of F ull Ci_vil Rights, there' 1s

“no conviction”. Per the Opinion JC- 0396, a person receiving the former ls not

even eligible for the latter ‘Ffor lack of an object” (to pardon). Grievant Schied

got BOTH and both the executive and judicial branches of Michigan and the

federal courts for the Eastern District of Michigans §Li on both the letter and

the spirit of the 1974 jury recommendation and Judge Guarino’s 1979 “M

'23

Michigan]” despite that a Texas jury of We,‘ T he People had otherwise decided

- based upon hearing the FACTS firsthand - that Grievant should be issued a

NON-FINAL DISPOSITION of “probation” and the chance to receive a

“clean slate” by way of an “early termination” of that probation. Note that

shortly after issuing that ruling, the Michigan Supreme Court promoted

“ju_dge” Stephens to the Court of Appeals where she resides still today. (Bold

emphasis added)

lt is noted that the Evidence provided herein, along with the testimony

presented in the Affidavits as explained further in this instant filing, altogether

encumber the Texas Court of Appeals to report these interstate crimes to the proper

federal authorities as Grievant Schied now is.doing with his submission of

“EXHIBIT#19” as a formal CRIME REPORT to the Harris County Prosecutor.

This crime report will be also provided to the Texas and Michigan offices-of the

FBI and to the U.S. Marsl1alls in both states. As such, the judges in review of this

information - if they fail to report these crimes to the proper authorities - become

subject to federal criminal prosecution under 18 U.S.C. -§4 (“Misprision of

Felony”) also losing their judicial immunity. Grievant David'Schied imp.lores those

in operation of this instant Court of Appeals then to simply do the right thing to

prevent further criminal victimization of Grievant, as required under the Texas

Termination Order Dismissing the Cause,-” as well as on Grievant having lived

an exemplary life for the next quartericentury in_h_o_nor_ cf those_decisions.

24

Constitution (Art. I,M §30) to take proper action to protect Grievant from the

accused.

Respectfully submitted,

c (au rights reserv¢d) 12/18/15

vSWORN D,ECLARATI,ON_OE TRUTH

l declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true to the best of my

knowledge and belief. If requeste.d, I will swear in testimony to the accuracy of the

above if requested by a competent court of law and of re.cord.

Respectful_ly submitted,

David Schied

w , P.O. B_ox 1378

§§ /Mf / Novi,Michigan 48376

V§WWA / 248-974-77()3

___.… , _ ,:' fill _ (all rights reserved)

David Schied _ Dated: 12/18/15

25

IN THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1

OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied,

Deceased

David Schied, Case No. 434_875

Interested Party Plaintij]"/

' Principa-l CoeHeir

- PRooF or sERvIcE /

David Schied - P_ro Per Jeannette Smith - co-beneficiary Michael Merritt - executor

P.O.- Bo_x 1378 c/o' Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney c/o David A. Munson, “attorney

Novi, Michigan 48376 Gaun_te, Earl, & Binney, LLP for the Applz‘cant” #2403'2'/68

248-946-4016 1400 Woodloch For'est Dr'., Ste.575 2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200

deschied@yahoo.com The Woodlands, Texas 77380 The Woodlands, Te'xas 773380

281-367-6555 281-210-3467

I affirm that on Novembcr 4, 2014, I mailed by certified U.S_. Postal delivery two

copies (one “0r'z°gz°nal” for the Court and one copy for the j udge) copy of the

following to the Harris Cou'nt Clerk Stan Stanart of the Harris County Probate

Courts at 201 Caroline, 6th Floor in Houston, Texas 77002. (The Motion for

Filing ln addition, by regular lst Class Mail delivery I mailed copies of the items

with asteri'sk (*) to the parties listed above in care of their attorneys, also named '

as parties as well as “~representatives” in this case.

* 1) “Complaint and Brief in Support of Opposz_`tion ” to ]llichael Ray Merritt ’s

“Application to Probate Will and for Letters Testimony ” complete with

“EXhibits #1-19” in support of statements and arguments in filing;

* 2) F‘Motz'on for Order to Show Cause and to Compel Documents ” and for '

lnjunctive, Declaratory and other Relief in Actions Taken Thus .Far

Against Plainti/j”’s Survivorshz'p Rl'ghts,' and to Determl'ne the Actual

Necessity and Degree of Need for T his Court ’s Further Involvement in the

‘Probating of the Remainz'ng Terms of Mickey Schied ’s Last Will and the

Last Aspects of ‘Administration ’ of Mickey Schied ’s Estate,"’

5

3) “Statement of Inability to Pay”

4) ‘~‘Motion for Waiver- of Court Costs and Fees and for Filing Documents

Without E-Filing”

5) This instant “Proof of Service”

DATED;. 1 1/4/14 - David schied - Pro Per '

P.O. Box 1378

Novi, Michigan 48376

t 248-946-4016

deschied@yaho'o.com

\

En'gn»h

~'"§PS TrackingTM

_EUSPS.COM'

Cubk`lbele

On Time _

Expeeted De|lvery Day: Thursda_y, November 6, 2014

Peetal Product:

Prauri_\y Mail 2-Da'y"‘

oATE s 'nm_E

Nev'eilib'er 6, 2914 , 11:04

am

C\`ut_e_t_rur Benlr.e

usps undue

‘Shlp l Plduge

USPS TrackingTM

Tlfacking Number: M11 07257430761821 3

Product & Tracking |nformation

Featutee:

$50 insuranc_'e included

STATUS OF lTEM

Delivemd

htcps://tools.usps.com/go/'l`rackContinnAc_tion!input.action?tRef=q...

scm mo mm woman

usps Tracxing“‘

Loc,_\_nou

SPR|NG, TX 77380

Vour item was delivered at 11:_04 am on Novemb'er 6. 2014 in SPR_|NG, ‘TX 77380.

NeyemberB. 2014 . 10:47

am

Novembere. 2`014 . 1<r37

em

Nov`emher 6,' 2014 . 6112 am

Nd\`l'dl‘ilber 6, 2014 , 4:01 am

November 6. 2014 .3:51 am

Nbvemper s, 2`014 ,-12.~56

Out far Delive`ry

Som'ng Complete

0

Arriyed at Post Ofnqe

Departed USPS Facl|iiy

Am`ved at USPS Faci|liy

SPR|NG, TX 77360

SPR|NG. TX 77380

s_PRiNG, Tx men

N`QRTH

HousToN, Tx 77315

NORTH

HOUSTON, TX 77315

am De¢'>aned u`sP`s Faemry ALLE`N PARK, Ml 45101

Navembem, 2014 ,e:os pm mfg "" usps °"'"’ ALLEN PAR»<, 'M`c 4a1o1

`November 4, 2014 . $:19 pm Departed Posl Offlce NOV|. Ml 48375

Novemher 4. 2014', 5:19 pm Pieked up Novl, Ml 43375

chemher 3. 2014 , 7:34 pm Departed Posx office Novl, Ml 48376

Nwember 3, 2014 ,6:4`5 pm Aoeepzanoe No`v\. Ml 43376

Track Another Package

Trecl¢ing (or rece|pt) number

`l?a¢:k lt

¢ust}emer Servlce )

Have questione? We're hen w help.

Avai|ab|e Actio`ns

Roglnhrl S|gn ln

Search USPS.com or Traek Paok_sges

BU€\M” Wl\l

11/‘13/2014 8:14AM

/IS_PS TrackingTM https’;//tools,_\`1sps.com/go/TrackConfirr`nAc'tion.action?tRef=fullpag..~.

sogusn ' cuswmer service ust mens Regmr. sign ur

search usl`>smm or 'rracr< Packages

Dusps.com'

:/ Qul§k T°bl$

USPS Tracking “"

\

Shlp e Peek¢ge Send Mai\ Man`age Ycur Mell Shop Busin'e`¢e Selm|end

Customer Servlce >

Hnye qiiestip'ns? We're here t_o h'elp.

Tracking Number: 9505511072574307675755

0

On Tin"ie

Expected Dellvery Day: Thursday, November 6, 2014

Product & Tra`cking information Availab|e Actions

Postal ,Pre,duct: Fa`atu res:

Prwri`ty Mau 2-nay"“ ssa insurance included usps Tradring"‘ T"f lipde

oArE~a. nme l sums or rreu LocAnoN ::§ F.mair beams

"l°"°"‘”°' " z°“" ' 1221 converse : sPRmG. Tx mac

Pm

§ Vour item-was delivered at 12:21 prn on November 6, 2014 in SPRlNG, TX 77380.

Neve`rnber 3. 2014 .6:45 pm

Track Another Package _

Track_ing (or receipt) number

1 ._ §§"emb°' 6' 2°“ ' 1°:‘7 our ror De\ivery spRrNG, 'rx men

;‘r:V¢"‘”¢' 5~ »2°“ ~ 1°:37 soning compete sP'r;`r`NG.- rx 177380

November 6_ 2014 .8:46 am Arrived at Post Offlce SFR|NG, TX 77380

Navember 6. 2014 ,3.1)4 am Amved at usPs Facurry Hg£¥gm TX 17315

§§Wm“' 5' 2°14 ' 1256 oeparred usps Frrdliry ALL§N PARK, Mr 48101

v v o

Noverrmer 4, 2014 , ecoa pm Q;‘.'l‘i*; a' usps °"°l" ALLEN PARK. M\ 4810'1

N¢wemoer 4. 2014 . 6:19 pm oepaned Posz once Novr, Mr 43375

que_mner 4. 2014 . 5:19 pm picked up Novr, Mr mrs

,November 3. 2014 . 7:34 pm named Pom once Novl. Ml 48376

Anoeptanoe

NOVl. M| 48376

0111ER uSPS 5|1£5

Business Cuslomer Gatewsy >

QN ABOuT.USPS.COM

About USPS Home>

LE¢;AL _ ou usPs.coM

Privacy policy ) Gcwernmenl Seiviees )

1 ofz ` 11/13/2014 8:15 AN

1400 WooDLoCi-l Foru§sr DR., STE. 575 THE WOODLANDS, TX 77380 T: 281.367.6555 F: 281.367.3705

GAUNTT, EARL & BINNEY,- LLP

September 11, 2014

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL/RRR #7196 9008 9111 2701 §§

David Schied

P.o. Box 1378 j

Novi, Michigan 48376

Re: Estate of Michael E. Schied

Dear Mr. Schied,

Janette Smith has retained our firm to represent her as a beneficiary of the Estate of Michael

E. Schied. '

At the time of your brother’s death, he was a resident of Texa_s~; therefore, Texas probate

laws apply. Accordingly, application must first be made to the court to admit the will to

probate and then the named executor under the will shall be appointed and receive letters

testamentary Until such time that the will is admitted to probate and the executor appointed,

the named executor has no authority to act on behalf of the estate, nor does anyone else. The

executor has a fiduciary duty to the estate and must follow the terms of the will;.~' Your

brother’s will specifically states that his house is to be sold and the proceed split between

you and your sister.

Pursuant to Texas law, any accounts with a payable on death or transfer on death designation

that are not the decedent’s estate and joint accounts with rights of survivorship are not

probate estate assets and therefore pass outside of the probate estate and are not subject to

bequest»un_der_a wil_l. Texa's Estates Code Sec. 113.151 controls the disposition of joint

accounts with rights of survivorship and states in pertinent part:

,ESTA.BLISHMENT OF RIGHT ,OF SURVIVORSH]P IN JOINT

ACCOUN'_I`;'OWNERSHIP ON DEATH OF _PARTY. (a) Sums remaining

on deposit on the death of a party to a joint account belong to the surviving

party or parties against the estate of the deceased party if the interest of the

deceased party is made to survive to the surviving party or parties by a written

agreement signed by the party who dies.

The bank account and stock account referenced m the will are both joint accounts with rights

of survivorship with Jani; therefore, the accounts automatically passed to Jani’ s sole

ownership upon Michael’s death and the, estate has no claim or authority over the assets 'in

WWW.G E Bl.AWYE RS .COM

the accounts. Simply put, the bequest in the will to you of one-half of the accounts is not

valid or enforceable

Please be advised that I do not represent the estate and any attorney that does only represents

the estate itself, not beneficiaries

If you have any question, I may be contacted Robin.Apos_tolakis@GEBlawyers.com or at

(281) 367-6555.

Sincerely,

Robin L. Apostolakis

iN THE PROBATE COURT No. 1 t

oF HARRIS CoUNTY, TEXAS .

In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied,

QBMBQBE

§

Deceased _ § ;'

David Schied, v Case No. 43487§“'1 §§

Interested Party Plaintijj‘/ ` ' §§

Princi'pal Co-Hei'r _ v

vs 1 11" " 3

Michael Merritt (named “executor”) and Wynde Merritt (“co-executdr” by§

Janette Renee Smith v proxy) 3

Robin Apostolakis

David Munson " ' ` '

Co-Defendants

AFFI])AVIT OF INDIGENCE AND STATEMENT OF INABILITY TO PAY /

COURT COSTS AND FEES ON APPEAL OF PROBATE COURT RULING

David Schied - Sui Juri`s Jeannette- Smith - co-benef`iciary M'ichael (named executor) and `

k P.O. Box 1378 and Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney _ Wynde Merritt (exec'u_tor by proxy)

Novi, Michigan 48376 Gaunte, Earl, ,& Binney, LLP and David A. Munson

248-347-1684 _ ' 1400 Woodloch Eorest Dr., Ste.575 2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200

The Woo,dlands, Texas 773 80 The Woodlands, 'l`exas 773 80

601 '\ 1I\ 1 AL"I

`~~ o lea““°`“¢ Smith ~ °°'be“¢fi°`ia"y Michael Merritt and W de Merritt

Apr_ll 30’ ~015 203 M°Nair St‘ 8526 Hot Springs Dr. yn

Pea Rl-dge’ Ar-kansa-S 72751 Houston, Texas 77095

479-451‘8692 281-855-2714

' 71_3-430~6286

WHEREFORE, Inte'rested Party PlaintW/ Princi`pal Co-Hez'r Davld Schled

relies upon Tans-Rules of Annellate"P-rocedure 20..1.(21)(2) (“Establishing

indigence by Adzdavi ”,) which states

“A party who cannot pay the costs in an appellate court may proceed

without advanced payment ofcosts i`f.' a) A party files and aji`davi't of indigence in

compliance with this rule, b) the claim of indigence is not contestable c) the party

timely files a notice of appeal ”

In accordance with the above-cited rule, I, David Schied am providing the

followmg mfonnation in compliance with Texas Rules of Civil Procedure

_. ` / w,~'"_»~ - 8 _

AFFII)AVIT _ _ g §

_______ ,'..;,;,:: `_ ”M.

l. I am a private American national citizen of the United States§).t 1915erid*s;

q

privately residing, and privately domiciling outside of a feder.d; district ad

HV

' within a non~militarily occupied private state not subject to the jurisdict$n` of iv

the United States. y 1

'2. I have been dom‘i_ciledin Michigan since 2003 when, during that year i_t was

discovered that l had been a :government.crime victim of the Harris County -

criminal court in fraudulentl issuin a “Earl- Termination .Ordero the

Court Dismissing~ the Cause”, pursuant to Section Slc),of,Article _.42..12~ which

`was»supposedto have included a “withd)jowal of plea,-” a ‘;‘di'smissal of ` l

indictment,” and a ‘fset»` aside of judgment’._" on a probated sentence.de_erned to

effectively provide -a “clean`sl.ate,” in 1979 but which Was not actually ever

implemented by.._th_e` State o_i',"l`exras and instead cwa.s_-‘.nlaintaincdr`as ia

“disposition” of .“conviction"." and with a “status"’ of “probation” ier the

subsequent 25 years, until it was determined otherwise by the Michigan Court

of Appeals in 2006 that such “convict_z'on” had remained throughout this time

until 2003, even_though th__e.Iexas Gove_r`nor MarkWhitehad also provided a

“Full Pardon and Full:ji§estoration ofCi'vil _Rights” in 1983 [dre'spite that Texas;

Attomey General-Daa~zyioraies had.¢pmed (DM-3~49) in 1._9-95.-11111"1111!."<111¢.` `

receivin .s` '

mst

Tmnscr.ip`t o'f Prooeedings Recorded on Auidio on 12/'19/ 14 ».

I§n Ha‘rris County (Texa's) Probate Court No. 1 with Judge Loyd Wright Presiding

D: He_llo-, this ls D_.avid.

J; (1naud1ble) . ` v '_ ' 1 __ ' ` v § "‘~ ` .. g

‘ ' ' § `§§‘ ss

D Ok,l Ican barely hear- ya’. I’ve got my volume turned upgsloudasl_ can 1§;¢ W°a_it- 1§,

az"` 1 ‘ - ann ".'.

1 §§ F'.

no. T.he're we go, let’sitr"y that 54 " §_ .z

.l-: Ok and we are here on.. .t__o clarify some things _a'nd t_o' uh;.. .consider some ed `th_e' plea§gs

about. .rega.rding' the Estate o'f Michael Edward Schied. n _ ; 1

D‘: Thank- you very much. M_a`y l ask ah, um,. .When you say “We are here,” I’d like to know

who that is and maybe ._t,`he name ofthe court reporter 'in case 1 need to orde_r_a§ transcnpf later:.

J The~Coun Reporfer isDon Fy.`l`a'nt; and uh, we"re'h'ere With `M'r. Munson 1e_presen'ting_, il't'hink,

the proposed exeeuto1.

D': Ok; And um, is boh', uh.. .could -y'ou spell he1 lest name?

J: No_ it_’ s D-o-n, D_on. It’s a gentleman Uh, sometimes he.’- s a gentleman. 1’-y-l-a-n-t.

D:_ “E” as in Edward? ` t

_._l: N`o, uh-. .\.The last name Pyl,aht§ P-y-`l-'a»n~t

D;- okl -

.l 1: “F”:ssm 'Paul.

.Di: Oh“P"Ok, thank you very n\uch1 I` haye a high frequency hearing loss and oonsonant-.sounds§ §

are -som;étin1es 11 problem. Uh, "thank you. Are any ofthejpar`tie`s héfe` at all? Is my sister

represented oranythlng"' 4 l l l n t 4 n n t

J: l believe she may b'e m the-. she 15 in the cou1'troom but she s not at this point in time t

participating She s sx_ttmg. out 111 the,gallery.

D: =Ok, thank you.

J: Alone.'§.~.'l`his is the only hearing we have today.\

. b - ‘

' Page 1 .-' Exhibit- 34 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

§ ` 4

1

IN THE .PRoBATE COURT No;“.i

' OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

»In. the Estate of vMichael Edward Schied, '

Deceased `

David Schied, '

In terested Party Plaintiff/ y

Principal Co-Heir

vs ~»

Michael Merritt (named “executor”) and Wynde Merritt (“co-executor” by

Janette Renee Smith ' y proxy)

Robin Apostolakis

David Munson

` Co- -Defendants /

PROOF OF SERVIC_E . /

David Schied - S_u_i Juris Jeannette Smith - co-beneflciary ' Michael (na_med executor) `and

P.O. Box 1378 and Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney Wynde Merritt (executor by proxy)

Novi, Michigan 48376 Gaunte, Earl, & Binney, LLP ~ and David A. Munson _

24»8-347-1684 1400 Woodloch Fo'rest Dr., Ste.575 2002 Tir'nberloch Pl.-, te. 200

The Woodlands. Tean 77380 The Woodlands, Texas 73 80

` Jeannette Smith -` co-beneflcia_ry Michael Merritt and Wynde Merritt

203 MCNa-if St- . 8526 Hor splings Dr.

Pea mdge, Afkan.$a$ 72751 Houston, Texa's 77095

479-451-8692 281_355_2.714

I affirm that on April 30, 2_0-15,`1 mailed by certifiedU.S-. Postal delivery copies ot"

all of the following listed documents to the Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart of the

Harris County Probate Courts at 201 Caroline, 6th Floor in Houston, Texas 77002;

and, each of the documents marked by asterisk (*) were sent to each of the parties

listed above bjy regular First Class mail.

* l) Notice of Appeal on Interlocutory and F mal Ju_dgment Mat_ters;

* 2) Requestfor Designatz`on of Addztzonal Items to Be Inclua’ea' m the O/Y`cial\_

Court Record,

* . 3) Notz`ce oflnaccurac_ies in the Trial Court Docketing Record in Need to

Correct Dates of "~‘Filz'ng"’ and Document Captions;

4) Aj‘idav'it of lndig`ence and Statement of Inabilil)) to _Pay Court Cos'ts and

Fees on Appeal of Probate Court Ruling (including a sworn and notarized

`_ckz“A@ vi 7)

5) Ac`company-ing “exhibits” number l, 2, and 3 (being four pages in total ) in

support of A]jz`davit of Indigence and Statement of Inabilily to Pay... ”;

6) Accompany-ing “cxhibit” #4 (b,eing 24 pages in total) captioned as

“Transcr_ipt of Proceedz`ngs Recorded on Audio on 12/19/14 in Harris

County (Texas) Probate Court No. 1 with Judge Loyd Wright Presia'z'ng”' ,

7) This instant “Proof of Servzce”

David Schied - Su_i Ju_ris

P.O. Box 1378

Novi, Michigan 48376

2_4»8~347-1684

f §

1 1`.

1 ;

1 .

i ;`

' 1

l

1

:

f

1

l

l

' 1

, .

' IN THE PROBATE COURT'NO. 1. .

OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS 1

,_ _"'In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied,

Deceased §, rt"iz . § '

. go 4~"‘ z §§

navid schied, ‘ Case No. 43487$ § , § 3

lnteresled Pany Plainti/_T/ ‘-‘.Iudge” Loyd Wright ` _ §

Principal Co-Heir § G

vs §

:. §§

Michael Merritt (named “executor”) and Wynde Merritt (‘-‘co-executor” by

Janette Renee Smith . proxy)

Robin Apostolakis

David Munson

Co-Defendants /

NO_TICE 'OF APPEAL

ON INTERLOCUTORY AND FINAL JUDGMENT MATTERS

and

` REQUES'I" FOR DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL ITEM(S)

TO BE INCLUDED IN THE OFFICIAL COURT RECORD

and '

NOTICE OF INACCURACIES IN THE TRIAL COURT “DOCKETING” RECORD

IN NEED TO CORRECT DATES OF “FIL~.ING'” AND D`OCUMENT CAPTIONS

/

David Schied _ Sw- Jm.l-S ,Ieann'ette Smith- co-be_ne_tici_ary Michael (named e.`xec'u_tor) and

15_0_ Bc',x 1378 ` and Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney Wynde Merritt (axecutor by proxy)

Novi, Michigan 48376 Gaunte, Earl, &` Binney, LLP and David A_.. Munson

248_347_] 684 1`400 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.575 2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200

' The Woodlands, Tean 7 7380 The Woodlands, Texas 773 80

281-367-6555 281-210-3467

Jeannette Smith - co-benet`lciary Michael-Merri_t_t and Wynde Merritt

203 McNair S_t. 8526 Hot Springs Dr.

Pea Ridge, Arkansas 72751 Houston, Texas 77095

479-45`1-8692 281-855-2714

713-430-62.86

Herein is notice that 1nterested Parly Plainti]Y/Principal Co-Heir David

Schied is appealing the Order Granting Motion far No Evidence Summagg

l

'v's=-

Michael Mcri'itt (na`med “el¥ecl{tor”) and Wynde Merr4

nn 1nterested Pa1117 Appellan't /

Deceased

Pfincipal Co-Heif

Janette Renee Smith

Robin Apostolakis

David Munson .

Co-Appel!ees /

PETITION FOR “DESIGNA TION OF ADDITIONAL ITEMS”

AND FOR

CORRECTI_NG DATES OF “FIL_ING”_ AND

DOCUMENT CAPTIONS ` ' '

~~ .~ »_;/

8/5/1_ 5

Appellant:

David Schied- Sui Juris

P O. Bo'x 1378

Novi, Michigan 48376

248-347-1684

' “ N_ooRALARcUMENr i_s'iz_EoUiREn '*

,Jeannette Smith co-beneiiciary

" Gaunte Earl & B`inney, LLP

1400 Woodloch For`est Dr., Ste. 575

The Woodland's, Texas 77380

281 -367-65'55

Jeannette Smith - co-beneticiary

203 McNair St.

Pea Ridge, Arkansas 72751

l 479~451- 8692

and KoblnL Apostolakls attorney .

‘Mlchael (named executor) and

Wynde Merritt (executor by proxy)

z ' and David A Munson

2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200

The Woodlands, Texas 77380

281-210-3467

Michaei Merria and Wynde Merritt

8526 Hot Springs Dr.

Houston, Tean 77095

281-855-2714

713-'430‘-6286

vsr F”‘ED 'N

IN THE TEXAS coURT~oF=APPEALS ~ous'§;,$f';;;§§¢s

‘ ` ‘ AUG

f Michael Edward Schied, ' CHR,S. 1 0 2015

. Deceased ` - CLERK T°PHEH A` Pm~s

David'i;??Sdheie"d", ' Case No. 434875

Interested Party Appellant / \

Principa1 Co-Heir

§ vs '

Michael Merritt (name_d “executor”) and Wynde Merritt (“co-ex`ecutof” by

Janette Renee Smith proxy)

Robin Apostolakis ~ ‘

David Munson

0 0 _ v _ Co-Appell.ees _~ _ _. . _ _ § ._ /

PETITION IN MOTION AND

AFFIDAVIT OF.NOTICE OF INCORRECT RECORD”

AND

NEED TO CORRECT BY ADDITION OF NAMES

DAVID MUNSON AND ROBIN 'APOSTOLAKIS AS CO.-AP_PELLEES

_ . 7 _ . _ /

MQ ORALARGUMENT IS REQUIRED

8/5/ 15 Co-Ar)pellees and Known Counsel

Appellant: _* `_ _ w _ 7 7

, _ _ _ Jeannette Smlth - co-beneflclary Mlchael (named executor) and

Davld Schied '_ S-w Jw'ls and Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney Wynde Merritt (execu_tor by proxy)

P~O-_B°’$ 1378 Gaume, Earl, & Binney, LLP and David A. Munson

§ N°Vl’ Ml¢hlgan 48376 1400 woodloch Forest Dr,, sre.svs 2002 Tirnberloch Pl., ste. 200

§ 248-347'1684 The woodlands, Tean 77380 The woodlands, rean 773 80

281-367-6555 _ 1 231-210-3_467 '

§ Jeannette Smith - co-beneflciary Michael Merritt and _Wynd€ Merritt

203 McNair St. . 8526 Hot Springs Dr.

Pea Ridge, Arkansas 72751 Houston, T_eXas 77095

479451-8.692 281-855-2714

713-'-430-6286

r~v

qaz'g:snr;,§;?‘°'°€&s

IN THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS A '…EA

UG 1 0 2015

In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied, - » CH"'S'OPHEH A. pm~-_

Deceased ' ~ CLE"“‘\`:

. David Schied, ~ ' Case No. 434875 ' .

Interested Party Plaintiff/ b

Principal Co-Heir ' `

vs '

Michael Merritt (named “executor”) and Wynde Merritt (“cmexecutor” by

Janette Renee Smith . , ' . proxy)

Robin Apostolakis ' `

David Munson

' Co-D_efendants /

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

August 5, 2015'. _

Co-Defendants and Known Counsel

~ - ABM Robin L. Apostolakis,,a~ttorney David A. Munson d

David Schied " Sui Ju""s -J'eanne`tte Smith - co-beneflcia'ry Michael (named executor) and

P'O',B°’f '13,78 Gaunte_. Earl, & Bi`nnc'y, LLP; Wynde Merritt (executor by proxy)

N°Vl’ Ml°»hlga“ 48376 1400 woodloch Foresc Dr., ste.575 2002 Timberloch Pl., sce. 200

248"347'1634 The woodlands, Tean 77380 The woodlands, Tean 773 80

281-367-6555 281-210-3467

Jeannette Smith - co-beneflciary Michael Merritt and Wynde Merritt

203 McNair St. 8526 Hot Sp`rings Dr.

Pea Ridge, Arkansas 72751 Houston, Texas 77095

479-451-8692 281»855-2714

713-430-6286

" 1 ofz

/

l hereby certify that on 8/5'/‘15 I sent by U.S. Post Cffice “Priority” delivery

' to the 'l`exas Court of Appeals, as well as to the above named five named co-

appellees (Michael Merritt, Wynde Merritt, Jannette Smith, David Munson, and-

Robin Apostolakis) at the addresses also indicated above, individual copies of the

following documents:

l) Petitionfor Designation ofAdditional Items and for Correcting Dates of

‘Filing ’ and Document Captions;

k 2) Petition-~in Motion and A#idavit of Notice of Incorrect Record and Need to

Correct by,Addition of Names David Munson and Robin Apostolakis as co-

Appellees,'

3) .This “Certificate of Service”

4) SASE and request for time-stamped copies

Respec'tfulIy submitted,

/‘}F‘\

.i.

. j l\ n l l /]%[>é

06 ~

20f2

'\\_,___. ~

IN THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1

OF HARRIS_ COUNTY, TEXAS

I_n the Estate of Michael Edward Schied, '

` ‘ Deceased

David schied, Case No. 434875

Interested Party Plaintiff/

_' Principal Co-He`ir

“COMPLAINTAND BRIEF _IN SUPPGRT OF OPPOSITION” TO MICHAEL

RAY MERRITT’S ‘-‘APPLICA TION TO PROBA TE WILL

AND FOR LETTERS TESTIMONY”

` and

“MOTION FOR URDER TO SHOW CA USE AND T0 COMPEL DOCUMENT.S”

AND FOR

INJUNCTIVE, DECLARAT~ORY AND OTHER RELIEF IN ACTIONS

TAKEN THUS FAR AGAINST PLAINTIFF’S SUR VIVORSHIP RIGHTS,

AND TO

DETERMINATE THE ACTUAL NECESSITY AND DEGREE OF NEED

FOR THIS COURT’S FURTHER INVOLVEMENT IN THE “PROBATING”

OF THE REMA[NING TERMS OF MICKEY SCHIED’S LAST WILL AND

THE LAST ASPECTS OF “ADMINISTRA TION"’ OF

' M'ICKEY SCHIED’S ESTATE”

Plaintiff’s Reservation of Right to a Trial by Jury i-s Prese_rved

David Schied - Pro Per Jeannette Smith - co-beneficiary Michael Merritté executor

P.O. Box 1378 c/o Robin L. Apostolaki's, attorney c/o David A. Munson, “attorney

Novi, Michigan 483 76 . Gaunte, Earl, & Binney, LLP for the Applicant” #24032768

248-946-4016 » 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.575 2002 Timb_erloch Pl., Ste. 200

deschied(a;yahoo.com‘ The Woodlan`ds, Texas 773 80 The Woodlands, Tean 773%80

281-367-6555 281'-210-3467

`\

,

Inter"ested Party Plaintiff and principal co-heir' to the Estate of Michael

Edward Schied, older brother David Schied, does file this complath against co.-h_eir

l

IN THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1

OF HARRIS C()UNTY, TEXAS

In the Estate or Micha°el Edward Schied, §

Deceased l--ic

_ . 3

David Schied, Case No. 434875 ' 1 - §

Interested Party Plaintiff/ §

` Principal Co-Heir g

" /

PRooF oF sERvICE //

David Schied ~ Pro Per Jeannette Smith -'co_-beneflciary 2 Michael_ Merritt - executor

P.O. Box 1378 c/o Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney c/o David A. Munson, “attorney

Novi, Michigan 48376 Gaunté, Earl-, & B_inney, LLP

for the Applican_t” #24032768

248;946-4016 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.575 2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200

deschied(a)y' ahoo.com The Woodlands,- Texas'77380 The Woodlands, Texas 7733 80

281-367-6555 281-210-3467

I affirm that on November .4, 2014, l mailed by certified U.S=. Postal delivery two

copies (one “0rigz`nal” for the Court and one copy for the judge) copy of the

. following to the Harris Count Clerk Stan Stanart of the Harris County Probate

Courts at 201 Carol_ine, 6th Floor in Houston, Texas 77002. (The Motion for

Filing ln addition, by regular 1St Class M_ail delivery l mailed copies of the items

with asterisk (*`) to the parties listed above in care of their attomeys, also named

as parties as Well as F‘representatives” in this case'.

* ]) “Complaint and Brief in Support of Oppositz'on ” to Mchael Ray Merritt ’s

' “Application to Probate W ill and for Letters Testz`mony ” complete With

“Exhibits #1-19” in support of statements and arguments in iiling;

* 2) “Motion for Order to Show Cause and to Compel Documents ” and for

Injunctive, Declaratory and other Relief in Actions Taken Thus F ar

Against Plainti/ji’s Su_rvivorship Rights; and to Determine the Actual

Necessity‘and Degre_e of Need for This` Court ’s Further In`volvem`ent in the

‘Probating of the Remainz`ng Te"rms OfMickey Schied ’s Last Will and the

Last Aspects of ‘Administration ’ of Mickey Schied ’s Estate;”

q

em*tw?¥

3) “Statement of Inabz'lity to Pay”

4) “Motion for Waz°ver' of Court Costs and Fees and for Filing Documents

Without E-Filing”

* 5) This instant “Proof of Senvice”

DATED: l l/4/ 14

David Schied ~ Pro Per

P.O. Box 1378

Novi, Michigan 48376

24’8-946-4016

deschied@yahoo.com

U§P*_S_. com® - USPS TrackingTM https://tools.usps.com/go/TrackContirmAction.action‘?tRef=fullpag...

Eng|ish Custcmal Servicc USPS |lllob||\ Reglstcr l Slgn ln

l .

! QUSPS.COM' . search usPs.wm or Trad< packages

Qulck To'ola Sh\p a Paokege Send Mail manage your Mni| Shop Busineec Solmtons

Customer Service )

Have questions? We're here to help.

USPS mckinng

Tracking Number: 9505511012574307679609

On Tlme

Expected Dellvery Day: Thursday, November 6, 2014

Product & Track-ing |nformation t Avai|able Actions

postal Product: Fea¢ures: l

l ; Priomy Mailz-nay"‘ $50 insurance included usPsTracking‘“ TeXfUPUM'-’~

. ; stating §§L.`S¢F.TE‘M" "`L¢ci+.`¢§. ` £;» Ema\.u,,da¢es

November 6, 2014 , 10:28

am namer _ HousToN, TX 71002

Vour item was delivered at 10:28 am on November 6, 2014 in HOUSTON, TX 77002.

y ' November€. 2014 , 9:59 am Sorting Complete n HOUSTON, TX 7`7002

November 6, 2014 , 8255 am Anwed ar Post Otiice HO_QSTON. TX 17002

November B. 2014 ,4:41 am 4Am'ved at USPS Facili\y l HOUSTON, TX 77201

:r‘r’,"e'“°er 51 2°" ' 1256 bepanea ust Fac_ilicy § ALLEN PARK, Ml 40101

November 4, 2014 .a;os pm Q;"c‘.'df; at usps °"gi“ ALLEN PARK, Ml 4a101

November 3, 2014 , 7;34 pm named Pasi once Novi, Ml 48376

November 3. 2014 ,6;52 vpm Awepmnce ' Novi, Ml 48376

l .-1

Track Another Package §

Tracklng (or mcelpt) numbon

1

LEGAL ON USPS.COM ON ABOUT.USP$.COM OTHER USPS S|TES

l

l

c

l

1

i.

Privacy Policy ) Governmem Setvlces ) About USPS Home ) Business Customer Gaksway >

Terms of Usa ) Buy Stamps & Shop ) Newsraom ) Pdsta| lnspectors >

FO|A > Prlnl a Labe| with Pos|age ) USPS Servica Alerts ) tnspector Generai )

No FEAR Act EEO Deta ) Cus\omS:Service > Forms & Publ|cations > Posta| E$<plorer,)

Delivering Solutions to the LastMlle ) Oareers ) Nalional Pcslai Museum »

Sile index 1

HUSPSCOM § Copyngmemau@sumgsm

11 cfr ` t 11/13/2014 8:16AM

. '/PS TrackingTM https://tools.usps.com/gc/'I`rackConiinnAction!input.action?tRef=q...

Englllll Cnatolm_iservlm

usps mm Ro'glmr) sign ln

EUSPS.COM- Search USFS.com or 1’rack Packages

Qulok.'l'ooll ship l hollow md Mlll Manlgc Your M\ll Bhop Bullncol Boluwm

a TM ` _",_ . _Customer Service )

US PS Trackl n g ` Hav_e questions? We‘ra here to help.

‘ ,

Tracking N_umber: 950'5511§07251430161'8213

i~ On Time

' Exp'e'ctejd Delivery Day':` Thursday, November 6, 2014

Prod uct & Tracking lnformation Availab|e Actions

Posu| Product: Feat.uras: '

Pnomy Mail 2-Day“” ssa insurance included usPs Tracking“‘ T°*‘ Uvda*es

mrs s. runs srA'rus oF I_TEM tqc_AnoN small updaia's

;‘:."°'"h°' °' ’°" ' "’°‘ neuveree sFRmG, Tx man

Your`item was delivered at 11:04 am on Noyembar 6. 2014 ln SPRING, TX 77380.

Novemher s, 2014 , 1047

am

Novembe»‘ 6. 2014 , 10:37

arn

Novemb§r 6, 2014 , 8512 am

November 6, 2014 . 4:01 am

November 6. 2014 , 3:51 am

No_vember 5. 2014 , 12:56

am

Novembe_r 4. 2014 ,8:05 pm

November 4. 2014 , 6:19 pm

' November 4. 2014 . 5:'19 pm

N_ovember 3, 2014 . 71_34 pm

November 3, 2014 ,6:48 pm»

001 for Delivery

Sorting Comp|ete

t

Amved at Pos_t once

Departed USPS Facility

Amvee at u`sPs Facimy

D_epane'd usps F'api_lity

Arrwed al USPS Qrigin

Faclllty `

Depan.ed Post Ochce

Picked Up

Departed Post Omce

Acoeptanoe

Track Another Package

Tracklng (or rsceipt) number

SPR|NG. TX 77380

sphqu Tx 77380

SPR|NG, TX 77380

NORTH

HOUSTON. TX 77315

N.O.R_T.H

Houston, rx 77315

AL,LEN PARK, Ml 48101

ALLEN PARK.` M140101

Novi, w 43375

Nov\. M1 43375

Novi, Ml 40370

NOV|. M| 48376

1

l

.

1on

._.:r:=_“:td

11/13/2014 8214 AM

//J/SPS TrackingTM

y WUSPS.COM'

T/ owen room

1.

USPS Mobile

Shlp a Packa`ge

USPS Tracking ""

On Time

Po's¢_a_l mayes

§ Priomy Mailz-nay"‘

November 6, 2014 , 12:21

pm

Nov'ember 6, 2014 , 1,0:47

am

Nwember 6, 2014 , 10:37

am

leember 6, 2014 . 0:46 am

November G. 2014 . 3:04 am

November 5. 2014 . 12:56

am

November¢i, 2014 . a;oa pm

Nd\`/ember 4, 2014 ,` 6:19 pm

Novembel' 4. 2014 . 5:19 pm

/ Novemb`e`r 3, 2014 , 7134 `p`m

November 3, 2014 , 6245 pm

DATE & TlME

Tracking Number: 9505511 072574301615755

Expec_ted Delive_ry Day: Thursday, November 6, 2014

Product & Tracking lnformation

Fea'tures':

$50 insurance included

STATUS OF lTEM

Dc|lvered y

Your item was delivered at 12:21 pm on Noverriber6,20141n SPR\NG, TX 77380.

Out for Deliv_ery

Sorting Complete

An'lved at Po_s\ Off_lce

Arrlved ai USPS Facll|ty

Departed USPS Fad|i!y

0

A`rrlv'ed at USPS Origin

Facnny

Departed Pofst Ol‘lice

mckee up

Departed Post Ofnce

Acceptance

Tracl< Another Package `

Tra_cking (or receipt) number

https://t`oo_ls.usps.com/go/Track€onfirmAction.action?tRef=fullpag..

Regisrer . S|gn ln

Se.arch USPS.oom or Tra'ck Pa_ckages

l . ,

Send Moll Manage Your Mall Shop Buslness Somtlona

Cu`storner Service )

Have quos'tions? We'r'e hereto help.

Avai|ab|e Actions

USPS Tracking"" TEX! Updates

LOCAT|ON jj Emal| Updates

$PR|NG, TX 77380

sPRlNG, Tx 17330

SPR|NG, TX 77380

s`P'RlNG. T)< 77030

NO'RTH

HOusToN, Tx 77315

ALLEN PARK, Ml 4a1o1

ALLEN PARK, M| 48101

NOV|, Ml 48375

NOVI. Ml 48375

NOV|, MI 48376

NOV|. M| 48376

LEGAL

Privacy Polir:y )

lof2

ON USPS.COM

Governmenl Servlces >

ON ABOUT.USPS.¢QM OTHER USPS SlTES

About USPS Homa ) Business Customor Gateway >

11/13/2014~8:15 AM

IN THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1

OF HARR_IS COUNTY, TEXAS

In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied,

Deceased

David Schied, Case No. 434875

Interested Paan Plaintiff/

Principal Co-Heir

MoTIoN

FoR WAIVER oF FEES,

_ FOR DEFAULT JUDGMEN`T,

AND . t

To EXPEDITE COURT ACTIONWITHIN 10 DAYS

WITHOUT HEARING

Plainti_fi’s Reservation of Right to a Trial by Jury is Preserved

David Schied - Pro Per Jeannette Smith - co~beneficiary Michael Merritt - executor

P.O. Box 1378 c/o Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney c/o David A. Munson, “attorney

Novi, Michigan 48376 Ga_unte, Earl, & Binney, LLP for the Applz'cant” #24032768

248-946~4016 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.575 2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200

deschied@ yahoo.com The Woodlands, Texas 773 80 The Woodlands, Texas 773380

‘ ' 281-367-6555 281-210-3467

Interested Party Plaintiff and principal co-heir» to the Estate of Michael

Edward Schied, older brother David Schied, does file this instant Motion based

upon his undisputed previous filing which was delivered to co-beneficiary

Jeannette Smith and executor Michael Merritt over four weeks ago and left

blatantly without any response back.

IN THE PRoBATE coURT No. 1

OF HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied,

Deceased

David Schied, . ` Case No. 43:4875

Interested Partv Plaintiff/

Principa`l Co-Heir v /

PROOF OF SERVICE /

` David Schied - Pro Per .leann'ette Smith - co-beneficiary Michael Merritt - executor

P.O. Box 1378 c/o Robin L. Apostolakis, ~attomey c/o David A. Munson, “attorney

Novi, Michigan 48376 Gaunte_, Earl, & Binney, LLP for the Appl_ica'n`t” #24032768

248-946-4016 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.5 75 2002 Timberlo'ch Pl., Ste. 200

deschied@yahoo.com The Woodlands, Texas 77380 The Woodlands, Texas 773§80

281-367-6555 281-210-3467

I affirm that on December 4, 2014, I mailed by certified U.S.l Posta_l delivery a

copy of:

l) Motionfo'r Waiver of F ees, for Default Judgment, and to Expedite Court

Action Within 10 Days Without Hearing;

2) This instant “Proof of Service”

to each of the co-beneficiary and executor listed above through their respective

attorneys at the addresses indicated

' ll David Schied -Pro Per

DATED: )(/4/ 14 P.o. Box 1378

. Novi, Michigan 48376

248-946-4016 _

deschicd@yaho_o.com

17

IN THE PROBATE COURT NO. 1

T_ _\% QF HARRIS CoUNTY, TEXAS

.`_.4"' " _- _ 1 '

In thet.Estate of Michael Edward Schied,

Deceased

David Schied, Case No. 434875

Interested Party Plaintl:#/

' 'Principal Co.-Heir

EME_RGENCY Mo_TIoN .

IN DEMAND FoR IMMEDIATE HEARING

(PRIOR To 12/19/14\sCH`E1)ULING CONFERENCE)

UPoN THISINS"TANT REPORT oF FRAUD'IN THE COURT RECORD,v

~ FOR '

DECLARATURY RULING oN THE TRUTHFULNESS 011

- TEXAS PROBATE COURT CLERK KIMBE-RLY HIGHTOWER’s

' ASSERTATION THAT A HEARING Is REQUIRED oN PREVIOUSLY FI_LED

' MoTIoN “To EX_PEDITE COURT ACTIoN wITHIN 10 DAYS '

, wlTH_ouT HEARING”

1 AND

FoR DE,FAULT JUI)'GM.E_NT '

lN ACCORDANCE WITH PREvloUsL_Y FILEI) “MoTIoN.FoR

DEFA ULTJUD`GMENP’ THAT wAs FoR.soME REASON NEVER

FILED YET ‘sERvEI)’ AND BASED oN oTHER PARTIES’ FAlLURE

To PROPERLY “ANSWER” AND “»SERVE"’ ANSWER WITHIN

THE REQUIR_ED TlME GUIDELINES Fon PRoPER RESPONSE

Plaintiff’s Reservation of Right to a Trial by Jury is Preserved

` David Schied - Pro Per Jeannette Smith - co-beneticiary Michael' Merritt - executor

P.O. Box 1378 c/o Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney c/o David A. Munson, “attorney

Novi,- Michigan 48376 Gaunte, Earl, & Binney, LLP for the Applicant” #24032768

248-347-1684 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr., Ste.575 2002 Timbe`rloch Pl., Ste. 200

NEW PHONE NUMBER The Woo_dlands, Texas 773 80 The Woodlands, Texas 773 80

deschied@yahoo.com robin.apostolakis@geblawvers.com dmunson@davidamunsonpc.com

281-367-6555 281 -210-3467

w ____ __ _ ea .<Z_z_.m._z_E. n__._..n.=§e. E___n_=_£._____s.___§___

__ _ _ o___e_=._____n___ _.n§._~sin_i_____

________ _ _____________ _____________

§§§ns=__s$.<!§_o£_ese£_ssssl%a!=

ceta n.n.!!_n_§.__n §§u.l_s_u_u.m_._a___.______,n_nan__.§__$

_______ ______ ,_e_____n____ _____§ …____

w . _ ________Q\__»@ ___nu____m_u% ______._c___._ ____E. m _. En__.__n_n¢ E_. § snnw_ .E

__ \N __ _ _|1 !=I£td§a$£§_n§im lll_\_ _

,.._, ._ ._.>___Q¢a._u.__<=m__wu U_. _;_ _ giais}vl!nh.mvd§o¢hw __ \

9 __ ._ _____________ inn _ irene _m §§______._M____ __…__z_ ___

_.._.. ,l .._ _ _ _ _.__n__u_n__n g $__E _S__ 26

__._ ____..L_Su BEB__¢__ ES__=____ EB=____vn£_-§_a

duval ._.Ea__n§__ _n___n__..c_ \_

,_i.l¢.

_ \ ': ` .

1111 Aon serum `rms con acrone`Aanme`ro 1115 rAchosl no_ pg_ucu n`£spen'_. __

_ __ __$. s_._..___a,n».€_ ue§_w___c_»,._inn_a_n_nam _ _ s§;§_.__ns_Vnun

m _ __ .n..___w.n_____n _mannumw___.__. E__ ____n___m_.w_.__.nn.___a_ U_ B_____¥¢ E_.a________.w_cz__

_ >_2________><_=__=__<¢ _U -

ns 1 _____________ _____________ _____________ ________ _______________n_s_n ___ _

. . _ _ U . . __ . _ _ ina_z_a:_n._¢§n.z_a§!.n&¢_m_

_ . o ___ __ xo 1__ . _ .. ~ 8_.__9__ __ _ .NEB= ._=Q

_ _______5 m vamm ________M__E _ _..__n.__m__nnW .._,Q_o__s__m__m___..__n E__ _£o ___.a_ _ > m

mt _ __ ___ _ _ §§ .__ nn____e_nn.___ u___.__

..1_§___._. Ez____n>_no_§=.__nm __ __ _ canonlEz>_-Bnu>nt_¢m _ __

...>en.=.u___n...:__…_ enn__a_na. _____________

__ s>nna___ema__£ . ___________>oe______n_nm__n_

q _ _< _ au§>.?§e__"ounmnnas_nn §><E n

_ _ § E_Ee__.=.s§€un§__nasn E z._iao_}___._n_m__.__.§._ u.n.____n€z_

_\v.. __ __ _ . >__o~_m__& . _ __ __ _B_E§.>~_.___E._m__£___

P .n_._.__en§_>_en.n€.__.n _ _ §“Nmn__§<na__!_nnu.z. _ ._

\ n§nwn__.d_n§ g §B»BMIMP:§ signing . . mEnZ

_.<___.&. >____n~ _mun.__ ___,m______n>o E_.._ _m__n“__. n._n____nw_

__… nonnu=_w__m_xmz_w_.____

____ _o.__E__z____._oS<__ _ _ m_na

__ _ __Muhu\____a._,`_ nm…_=__:__ _ __

_.________ ` § enmm_axm

jam m__.__.n ___an __M_____s__…__mna 1 ._1

111 l_\

. . .

_

.n__&_a____nn__s_nnn_ _

7/19IZO15

Ship

L<@€"'/ '1'111@1<'1'1*1@

= D .

Tu'es 1 16/2014 `

Nc)vl,ml usa

Tra'ck

Track your package or shipment with FedEx Trackin`g

t

Manage Learn

_D:e'¢ivv_' d

` §' ' j.-__we111z/'17'1'zo_1

FedEx om¢e ®

Ac!uai del

)-JQL¢»ST<)N,- x`uS_`

4` 1:0:4_6-'a[1_l

Siqned 'icr'iby.~ 'M`. SABALA

My mae -_ suppon umw § mm

Search )

Login

Trave| History

n Date/Tlme Actlvity Loca\ion

§ - 1517/2614 ~ Wedne$uay _

10:46 am Delivered HousTON. w

: Shlpment Facts

§ Tra'cl_<ing Se'rv'icc ' F¢=,dEx Siandé{d Overniqht

number 806667723761 -

4 Special handling ._ . »

. 1 a

section l_)ehver Weekd ay

»1 ___________ .….,_ _..~11_1__1.1~ … … _ 1 / _ n 1~._~-~--\-11.~..__111.

Search )

` customey Fo_¢'un remand services companies § Fonow seems \U umwa swing - Enghsh

New Cu$!omer Cenler FedEx C)ue Rale FedEx Expre.\;:'~' ;

Smau Busin¢;ss Cenler FedEx SameDay f‘-'edEx 13 round 7

Scrvn:c~:- Gui¢m Fed£";x Hame D@|ivery F<-.dEx O'|fice

Cust<)n\w Su;)p`orl Hea|lh_care Sq|utions FedEx Freight z

Clwline Reta`l| Solutions FedEx Cl)s!um .Cri!ical §

Compariy lr_z_fo`nnartion Pack,aglng Serv!c`es chEx Tradc Nemork's 1

Abc>u! F'edéx Ar\ci|lary Cl(-zarance Sezrv)<:e$ Fer_iEx Si.lppfy(l¥ha!n

Caree_rs F<edE)< `l`echCon`nect

lnves*.or Rela!ions Other Resourcos §

FedEx Comp'a!iblé: §

Deve|oper Resource Cenier

vF¢.».clt=_?x $hip Mana`gr~>r Softwam §

© FedEx 1995-2015

F<-!dEx Mob!|@

Globa| Home l Sjte Map f fede)_<.go'm Term's of U_se | Socuriiy`a-`nd Pri\`¢acy

https://www.fedex.com/apps/fedextrackl?fracknumbers=806667723761&cntry_code=us

.ECOND DAY OF REPEAT DELIVERY (No'acknow|edgment to t`r... https://us-mg$.mail.yaho'o.com/neo/b/message?sMid=O&t]d=S.ent&s...

lon

SECOND DAY 0F REPEAT DELlVERY (lio acknowledgment to t"rrst): URGENT RESEND|N mursaay, December 13,20141.33 PM

G: Wrong draft of motion sent' rn last email .

Frqm: ‘"David Schied" <deschled@y`aho_o. oo`m>

To: Krmbertyi-irghtower@prob hct)t.nei dmunson@davidamurtsonpc.com janiotpr@yahoo.com Susie.Rowley@Prob.hctx.n

robtn.apostolakis@geblawyers.oc

l ccc § i_amag'ranny&@cox.net

1Files 198_KB Dov_v_nload Ali

rcr rents

: Mot&Der_n

i anddlmme

il dHea`rtri

Save

Since l have not heard anything back to the message sent out with the RlGHT digital tile ot the Motion delivered to the_ Court yesterday. | am resending lt vi

again to the Clerk and Coordinator of the Probate Court tor passing along to the (thus far unnamed) Presiding Judge for this case for review prior to /

tomorrow moming' s hearing

Again, an acknowledgment 01 receipt of this resent CORRECT motion will be appreciated since these last two days of "service" ot these items are made

in good faith attempt to provide the lavored "Electro`nic Servic`e" to the attorneys of record and to the Preslding Judge ot a courtesy copy, along with

notice that the initial "Motion" was the wrong one so the need _to provide the attadt_ed. me as a replacement

Cordlally yours,

David Schied

Dtsdaimer: This a-mall is covered by the Electronic Commurtication Privacy A¢:tl 18 U.S.C. Secilon 2510-2521 and is legally privileged The

accompanying message and any attachments ar`e tor the sole use ot the intended recipients and may contain proprietary andlor contideniiai intorrnation

which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure Any unauthorized review use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited tt'you are not the

intended recipients please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and _a'ny copies of the message as well as any

attadtments to the original message Thank you tor your cooperation

- On Wed, 12/17/14, David Schied <ges`chted@y"ahoo.com> wrote:

> Frorn: David Schied <desdried@yahoo .com>

> Subject_: URGENT RESEND!NG_: Wmng drdt o_t motion sent in ia_st email

> To: Kimbengl`»lighgg¢e \_'@grob. ndx. net, munson@davldamunsonp¢_: com, aniofg£@ra__hoo. oom, Susie. RM| e.y_@Prgb hctx net

mbi n. apg§toiai<i§@gebl_a_wyers rsco.m

> Cc: iamagranny§@@x.net

> Date.' Wedne`sd'ay, December 17. 2014, 8:24 PM ‘

> To Probate Court Coord|nator Kimberly

> nghtower. Probate _Cou`r1 Cieri<` Susie watey Attomey tor

> Jani Smith_. .Robin Apostolakis, Jani Smith, Attomey for

> Michaet Merritt:

> .

> Ptease note that in reviewing the files that l sent to you

> about three hours ago. l discovered that | had lnadvertentty

> sent the wrong draft 01 my actual “Motion..." despite that

> all ot the Exh_ioi_ts_ that | sent to you came from the

> appropriate folder from my computer (Th_e Motion iha_t l sent

> to you was the one that | had saved in a different location

> on my computer when i was preparing the cover page to be

> sent to th_'e Probate Court "coordin`ato`r" Kirnberty Hightowe`r

> as she had commanded in order for me to get authorization

> for her to schedule the hearing for Frtday. j

, ,

> As a result ol that mix-up ot t`r|es lrom yesterday the

> "Motion" file (by the same name as that which is attached

> herein) w`a`s the WRONG (lNCOMPLETED) FlLE. Please note that

> the one attached has a DtFFERENT cover page and contents

> including th_e appropriate dates on the cover pages end the

> >appropriate information on the "Proof cf Service. "

> >l ask you alito each disregard the MOTlON ONLY from

> the last er_natt and substitute this instant attachment as a

> copy of the COURT ORlGiNAi. that was delivered today to the

> Probate Court. Again th_e "Nlotion" itself sent in the last

> email about three hours ago was the WRONG draft and you need

> to accept and substitute the attachment to this email tor

> that previous one. Further. please be advised that ALL

> A`iTACHED lTEMS GF~"EXHiB|TS' ARE ST|LL EXACT COPIES OF WHAT

> THE COURT RECEIVED. (it was only the "rnotlon" that was

> inadvertently sent wrongly, for'wh‘roh this instant email

> serves to correct that error.)

>

> The cover page of the attached, as the copy ot the motion

> received b'y` the Co`urt today for tliing is caiied: .

>

12/`18/`2014 1:33 Pl\-

URGENT RESENDING: Wrong draft of motion sent in last email '-... https://us-mg$.mai'l;yahoo.com/neo/b/message?sMid=O&§d=Frien. ..

URGENT RESEND|NG: Wrong draft of motion sent in last email wednesday December 11, 2014 e;24 m

From: "David Schied" <deschied@yahoo.com> '

To: Kimberly.i-tightower@prob.hctx_net dmun_son@dayidamunsonpc.com janlofpr@yahoo.com Susie.Rowley@Pron hctx.net

robin.apostolakis@gebtawyers.com l

cc: lamagranny$@cox.net

1 Ft`tes tesl<e Download All

FDF 198KB

Mot&Dem i

and4lmme `

| detailith `,

Save

`l'o Probate Court Coordinator Nmbsr|y Hight_ower. Probate Court Clerk Susie Row|ey, Attomey ior Jani Smith...Robin Apostolal_tis, Jani Smith, Atto_rney

for Michael Merritt:

Please note that in reviewing the files that l sent to you about three hours ago, l discov§red thgt l had inadvertently s§n_t the wrong dra_t_t of my actual

"Motion... " despite that all of the Exhibrts_ that l sent to you came from the appropriat§ f_o_l_der from my computer (The Motion tha_t_ l sent tp you was t_he

one that l had saved' in a different location on my computer when l was preparing the cover page to be sent to the Probate Court "coordlnatol" Kimberiy

Hightower as she had ccmrnandad' rn order for me to get authorization for her to schedule the hearing for Fr;day.

As a result qf. that rni)r~up of files from yesterday the "Motion' file (by the same name as that which is attached herein) was the WRONG

(lNCGMPLETED) FlLE. Please note that the one attached has a DiFFERENT cover page and oontents. including the appropriate dates o`n the cover

pages and the appropriate information on the "Proof of Seryice"

l ask you ali to each disregard the MOT|ON ONL¥ from the last email and substitute this instant attachment as a copy of the COURT OR|G|NAL that

was delivered today to the Pi abate Court. Ag`ain, the "Mot|o'n” itself sent in the last email about three hours ago was the WRONG drait and you need to

accept and substitute the attachment to this email for that previous one. Furth`er please be advised that ALL'ATTACHED lTEMS OF "EXHlBlTS' ARE .

ST|LL EXACT COP|ES OF WHAT THE COURT RECE|VED (|t was only l_he “motion“ that was inadvertently sent wrongly, for which this instant email

serves to correct that error.)

The cover page of the attached as the copy of the motion received.by the Court today for filing ls cail_ed:

"EMERGENCY MOT|ON |N DEMAND FOR |MMEDIATE HEAR|NG (PR|OR `i'O 12/19/14 SCHEDUL\NG CONFERENCE) UPON TH|S iNSTANT

REPORT OF FRAUD lN THE COURT RECORD. FOR DECLARATORY RULlNG 0N THE TRUTHFULNESS OF TEXAS FROBATE COURT CLERK

K|MBERLV HiGHTOWER'S ASSERTAT|()N THAT A HEAR|NG 18 REQUiRED ON PREV|OUSLY FlLED MOTiON l'TO EXPEDiTE COURT ACT|ON

WiTHiN 10 DAYS W|THOUT HEARING'

AND FQR D_EFAULT JUDGMEN_T l_N ACCORDANCE Wl`i'H PREVIO_USLY FlLED ‘MOT‘ON FGR [_)EFAULT JUDGMENT" THAT WAS FOR SOME

R_EA_SON NEVER FlLED YET 'S_ERVE_D_' AND BASED ON OTHE_R PARTlES‘ FAiLUR_E TO PR_OPERLY “ANSWER" AN_D “SERVE' ANSWER W|TH|N §

THE REQU|RED TlME GU|DELiNES FOR PROPER RESPONSE"

Note that the WRONG COPV that l sent to all cf you about three hours ago- which you should disregard and otherwise destroy as it' is NOT the right one

- is captioned:

"EME_RGENCY MOT|ON |N DE__MAND FO_R IMMED|ATE HI::AR_I_NG (PR|OR TO 12/1_9/14 S_C_HEDL!L|NG CO_NFERENC_E) Ui ’ON TH|_S_ |NSTANT

REPORT OF FRAUD tN THE COURT RECORD AND FOR DECLARAT_ORV RUL|NG ON THE TRU'THFULNE_SS OF TEXAS PROBATE COURT

CLERK KiMBERLY HiGHTOWER’ S ASSERTAT|ON THAT A HEAR|NG iS REQU|RED ON PREVICUSLY FlLED MOT|ON "T() EXFED|TE COURT

ACT|ON WiTHlN 10 DAYS WlTHOUT HF.ARlNG"

Piaase`|et me know you have received this correction and the R|GHT attachment of motion as pinned to this email. Thank you.

Cordiaily yours.

David Schied

Dis_c|aimer: This e-ma|| i_s covered by the Electronlc Communication Privacy Ar:t4 18 U.S.C. Section 2510-2521 and is legally privileged The

accompanying message and any attachments are for the s_`oie use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information

which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure Any unauthorized revier use, disclosure or distribution i_s prohibited lf you are not the

intended recipientsl please contact the sender by reply emil and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any

attachments to the original message Thank y`ou for your cooperationl

i ofl . 12/17/2014 8:29 PM

;n_t as courtesy upon your demand to determine whether filing is a.n... https://us-mg$.mai1.yahoo.com/neo/b/messa'ge?sMid=O&fid='Sent&s...

Sent as courtesy upon your demand to determine whether filing is an "Emergency" base ruesday, otime 16. 2014 12:3'1 PM

d_ on motion title

Frem: "David Sdiied“ <deschled@yaho'o.com>

re "Kimt_>e_riy <Prob_aie couns)rtighwwer" <Kimveriy.Highrower@prov.hcvr.ner>

1F'iies 163»<5 Dewnioad Aii

PDF 163KB

Co_v`erPag

eforEmerg

en'cy_li/lotio l

Save

Greet_ings Ms. nghtower and To Whor_never Else lt M_ay Con_cem at Probate Court >No. 1:

| am sending the attached cover page that we spoke about over the phone in which you told me of the following:

That' in order to have an "emergency motion" filed on your Probate Court No. 1 docket, you- along with the Stati Attomey and the Judge- need to

determine whether my document filing constitutes an "emergency " How this does not constitute pre~judicial decision-making and a predetennination of a

filing prior to due process reading and a fortnal decision by the Court, | cannot imagine Nevertheless, since you appeared only confused by my attempt

to rwd the motion over the phone, and since you insisted that l sent to you the cover page to you by email fo'r determination TOUAY of whether you will

assign a hearing date prior to Friday‘s scheduling cfa "conference“ for the purpose of SET|'|NG TRiAL, l arn sending to you the attachment in good faith

that you will get back to me as promised by the end of the day today with your determination

Pleas_e note that_ in reference to what l told you ov_er the phone, l ami filing this "_Emergenry M_otiqri. .for peclaratory Ruling.._. " base. in pan upon your

refusal to provide me with answers to what | sent to you on 12/11/14 as shown below. in addition l am filing this motion to report Fraud Upon the Court

based upon your Court‘s failure to properly hle my documents as otherwise 'served" upon the Court, and instead filing aitomey Munson‘s "Answer' on

the docket without questioning the integrity of his documents l contend that his documents are fraudulent and my motion contains reasoning why along

with supporting cause to believe that you and other Clerks of the court are tainting and dragging out this case- -rather than to provide me with a “Defa_u_lt

Judgment" on my ea.'lieri tilings- in order to fieece my brothers estate.

As‘a final note since you already know that l have been `balking and disagreeing with your doing favors for attomey Munson tr\»"skip" a scheduling

conference and to expedite the scheduling of a Jury Trial the premise that l am "contesting" the Wlll and while knowing that lain ONLY contesting the

"App||cation" of Michaet Merritt and see no reason for the continued involvement of attorney Munson beyond the review of all rny Evidence and a ruling

on the Defa`ult J_udgment given that nobody responded to my initial tiiing within the required 20+3 days... ..i will most certainty be_ attending that Frid_ay

hearing iN PROTEST and`without cooperation in those proceedings based o`n the reasoning lintend to present lnstead' in this Emergency Motion

if you deny scheduling icr my "Ernergency Motion to be held prior to Fr'iday's "conferencing" event, please provide:

1) The explicit reason(s) for the denial:

2) The NAMES as well as the titles of all those involved with that decision.

in any event, l wish to know if there has been a judge assigned to this dose, and if so, what is th`at person's name.

Ad_ditionally. l wish to know the name of the "S_taff Attorn`ey" that yo_u spoke.abou_t during our call a few minutes ago.

l shall expect to hear from you then by the end of today Thank you for taking my ca|l.

Note also that as l had informed you that l was not yet completed with the construction of this Motion. l reserve ali right to change th`e wording inient, or

anything else currently being represented on the face of my motion es attached by cover page. lt ls still a v"ork in progress and NOT subject to sharing

with any o`th`er parties or their attorneys with interest in this case

Coidia!lvyjours.

David .S§hi'ed

Disclaimer. This e-mai| is covered by the Electronic Communication Privacy Act. 18 U.S,C. Secti'on 2510-2521 and is legally privileged. The

accompanying message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or confidential information

which m_ay be privileged or othe'niv_ise protected from disclosure Any unauthorized revlew. use, disclosure or distribution is prohibited if you are n`ot the

intended recipients please contact the sender by reply entail and destroy the original message and any copies of the message as well as any

anachments to the original message Thank you for your cooperation

-- On 'Thu, 12/11/14, David Schied M@QMM> wrote:

> From: David Schied <d_q_s_ritig@yahg.com>

> Subject RE: 434,875 - Schied Estate - Schedu|ing Confer'ence

> To: "Kimberly (Probate Cou'its)nghtower" < `n"ibe'rl .Hi htow`e`r b.hct)¢,net>

> <Cc: "`janiofg[@,yahoo.com" <'an' r ahoo.com>, "Sharon Hay" <la a `nn'3 net>, "Susle (Probate Courts)Rowley"

> <D:ate Thursday. December 11, 2014 10.50AM

> >Kimberly Hightower.

> >So as l readwhat you have

> written below you are claian that your Texas Probate

> Court sets for' jury trial an objection to any initial filing

> for "Appiication (by any individual) to Probate Wlll

> an`d f_o`r Letters Testimony (to be issued by the

> for a "Motion for Defau|t Judgment_..." on a

> previousiy- f led "Motion for Show Cause and to Compei

> Documents" vmen such "Motion for Default. ."

> stipulated on the cover page a move forthe Probate Court

12/16/2014 12»:31 Pl_\/_

Sent as courtesy upon your demand to determine whether filing is an...

20f10

> judge tq` ege'cute such a defaul_t judgmmt "WlTHOUT

> HEAR|NG"? Am l right?

>

> lf l am wrong about any

> section of the above, please explain each particular section

> of the above - in detail - that l have misunderstood b`y

> using the following as a helpful guide for explanation:

>

>1)$0 as l read whm you have

> written below, you are claiming that your Texas Probate

> Court .

>

> 2) sets for jury

> trial an objection to any initial filing for

>"Application (by any individual) to Probate Will and

> for Letters Testimony_ (to be issued by the

> "applicant") '-

>

> 3) and that a hearing MUST be schedule f_or a

>"Moti_on for De_i_aul_t Judgment... " on a

> previously-hied "Molion for Show ¢ause and to Compel

> Documents"-

>

> 4) when _

> such "Motion for Defaul ..." stipulated on the

> cover page a move for the Probate Courtju'lge to execute

> such a default judgment "WlTHOUT HEARlNG" -

>

>'For each phrase cf the content

> of the message above, please indicate a YES or NO, and if

> "NO" then please explain fully.

>

> l need this information in

> writing as l do not wish to engage in anything that is not

> fully recorded at this time for further reference as |

>

> l_f all of the above'is consol

> and the answer to each section is "YES" then l

> would like to schedule such hearing foras soon as possible l

> Tomorrow perhaps

>

> Aiso,

> given that you have NOT provided me with th`_e requested links

> location of information that governments the process by

> which hearing notices are sent out and the number of days

> required of such notice. by what method the hearing notices

> are to be provided to the Court as "proof of

> service", etc. or whether the Court provides such

> notice and service themselves

>

> Cordially yours,

> David Schied

>

> Disclain'ier: Thls e-mai| is covered by the

> Eiectrc»nic Communication Privacy Act, 18 U.SrC. Section

> 2510-2521 and is legally privileged The accompanying

> message and any attachments are for the sole use of the

> intended recipients and may contain proprietary and/or

> confidential information which may be privileged or

> othen~ise protected from disclosure Any unauthorized

> review, use, disclosure or distribution ls prohibited if

> you are not the intended recipients please contact the

> sender by reply email and destroy the original message and

> any copies of the'rnessage as`we|| as any attachments to the

> original message Thank you for your cooperation

>

> ___`_.___.___‘___'__.'__._.

> 0nWed,12/10l14 Hightower, Kimberly (Probate

> Courts) <Kirnberly. Hightower@grgb hctx. net>

> wrote:

>

> Subject; RE: 434.875 -

> Schied Estate - Schfeduling Conference

> To'

>"David Schied"< h ` com>

> C.¢ "mmdel@zammm"

> <iani_°.fer.@.v.ab___w@m>

>"Sharon Hay" <iLaBn_ny§@.izzx.n§t>.

>“Rowiey, Susie (Probate Courts)" <Susie. Rowig¢@Prob. hctx.net>.

'>T>avid A Munson tdmunm@dammlm§um_®_m)"

> o`n 'dam` c.

htt`ps://us-mg$.rnai1.yahoo.com/neo/b/message?sMid=O&fjd=Sent&s...

12/16/_20_14 12:31PM

Re: Case: 434875 - Motion for Def`ault Judgment o'n No Challenge t... _ htt`ps://u`s-mg5.mail.yahoo.com/neo/b/message?sMid=9&Ed=InboX..~.

\

Re: Case`: 434875 - Motion for Default Judg`ment on No Challenge to Objection of Executo rnurseay, oensmnera, 201412;29 PM

r and for lssue_ of Sh_ow Cause Order ~

Frem: ;"Jani Sm|ih!’ <janiofpr@yahoo.oom> _ `

re David smiedr`ldé§éiiéa@yaho$f¢bn§"_

cc susre(Probare couns)"Rowley"<su'sie.Rewr§@va.hm:ner> "DavidA'.wiliririson""¥iii'nuns;héaavrdamun's'eripc.com>"lt

robin.aposto|akis@geblawyers.oom" <robin.apostolakis@gebla\_/iryers.com>§l Sharon Hay"<iamagrannyB@cox.net>

David Schied received 30,000 from the estate back in October, so l am unclear as io why he is asking for fees to be waived. in my opinion, if he want's to

put a stop to things moving forward, then he SHOULD have to pay for that himseif.

Sincerely,

Jani Smith (his sister)

Sent from my iPhon`e

On Dec 4, 2014. al 10:18 AM, David Schied <ge_sg;ied@yahg_q.w> wrote:

> Dear Ms, Rowley,

>

> Please accept the attad'ir'nent that has gone out in today's mall as served upon the other parties and their counsel, by this emai|, and by First Class

Mall. Plea`se note that the attached Motion requests for Orders to be delivered WlTHOUT ORAL HEAR|NG.

> ` ' ‘

> Thank you.

>

> Cordially yours, -

> David Schied

> .

> Disclaimer: This e-mall is covered by the Electronic Communication anacy Act. 18 U.S.C. Sectlon 2510»2521 and ls legally privileged The

accompanying message a`nfd an`y' attachments are for the s`ole use of the intended recipients and ma`y contain proprietary and/or confidential information

which may be privileged o_r otherwise protected horn disclosure Any unauthorized review, us_e, disclosure or distribution is prohibited |f you_ are not the

` attachments to the original message Thank you for your cooperation

> <Mor40eraurr.rudgrnenrsroexpedire.paf>

l of 1 ` . 1_2/4/2014 2.:30 PM

RE: Casé: 434875 - Motion for Default Judgment on No Challenge https://us-mg$.mail.yal'ioo.com/neo/b/mess,age?s_earch=1&s;Muns...

De`ar Ms. Susie Row|ey,

Please explain to me about "your"

office 1od_ay' is the f rst l've heard about "yi_)uf' office and l have no information about either you or your otlice l was just respondinth what Mr

Munson had written as his FIRST CORR_ESPONDENCE since his initial filing with the Court

Are you under authority ot the Probate Court?

and is Mr. Munson engaging you in ott-the-rewrd favors or "exparte" communications that might prejudice this case?

Cordialty

yours.

David Schied

Dlsdaimer: This e- mallis covered by the Eledronlc Communlcatlon Privacy Act, 18 U. S G. Sect|on

2510-2521 and' is legally privileged The accompanying message and any attachments are for the sole use of the intended recipients and may contain

proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise protected from disclosure Any unauthorized review, use disclosure or

distribution is prohibited it you are not the intended reclplents, please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original message and any

copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message. Thank you for your r:.coper'aiionl

On Thu, 124/14 Rowley, Susie (Probate Cou. ts) <§gs'@.BM\ey:@E_rog‘ hctx,net>

wrote:

Subjeci: RE: Case: » _ `

434875- Motion for Default Judgmeni on No Chal|enge to Objedion of Execuior and for issue of Siiow Cause Order \

To: "David Schied" <d`e es§hied@yahoo. com>. "DavidA. Munson" <dmle;n@da_daimiMm>. "Jani Smith" <@Lfg[@yahgi_m>,

~ "robin apostolaki$@cw"

<robin. apggola_ki§@geblyyers Qm>

C¢- “Shamn Hay" <@_rmmi§@m£i>

Dates Thursday. December 4, 2014, 12523 PM

The court cannot consider n '_

any motions that are e-rna;iled directly to the Court, You must fii_e the motion with the Cleik‘s of_llce_. The motion can then wit be brought to our oftice `

for consideration

Susie

Rowle`y

~-Orlgina|

Messa'ge--

From; Da_vid Schied [rnz_iilio:de§mied@yahoo.com]

Sent: Thursday, December 04,

2014 10218 AM

To: R`owiey, Susie (Pr`obate

Cou'its); David A. Mun'sori"l Jani Smllh; gin.apo`stolakls@g` ebla_vin¢` 'e`i's.com

Cc:` S'naron` Hay

Subiect:

Case:

434875 - Motion for Defau|t Judgment

on No Challange to Objecilon ot Executor and for issue of Show Cause Order

Dear Ms, '

Row|ey.

Please accept the

attachment

that has gone out in today's

mall a`s served upon the other parties and their munsei. by this emai|, and by First Class Mail Please note that the attached Motion requests for

Orders to be delivered WlTHOUT ORAL HEAR|NG.

Thank you.

contrary

yours

David schied

Disclaime'r: This e-maii is covered by the Elemro'nic Communication Priv`acy Act, 16 U.S.C. Section

2510-2521 a`nd is iegally privileged The accompanying message and any attafdiments are tc`r the sole use of the intended recipients a`nd may

contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged or otherwise proteded from disciosure. Any unauthorized review, use,

disclosure ordistrlbution is prohibited lt you are not the intended redpien_t_s. please contact the sender by reply email and destroy the original

message and any copies of the message as well as any attachments to the original message mank you for your cooperation

2 ofz z ' 12/15/2014 7:26 AM

suMMoNs

No'rlcE To THE oEFENDAN'rs;

1. You are being sued.

2. You may employ an attorney.

3. lf you or your attorney do not file a written answer with the clerk who issued this .

citation by 10: 00 a. m. on the Monday next following the expiration of twenty days

after you were served this citation and petitio'n, a default judgment may be taken

against you.

lSSUED: 01I14l2015

COURT CLERK': Stan _St'a'nal"`t

*~ lf you require special accommodations to use the court because of a disability or if you require a

foreign language interpreter to help you fully participate in court proceedin'gs, please contact the

court immediately to make arrangements

PROOF OF SERV|CE

Be:ing first duly sworn, l state that lam a legally competent adult who is not a party or an

officer of a corporate party-, and that in regard to the above-referenced case number

434875 pertaining to the Estate of Michael Edward Schied as filed in the Harris County,

Texas Probate Court No. 1 with presiding judge Loyd Wright, l issued service of thje

following list of documents to the Court and to the following Defendant or Co-

Defendants as indicated by check m'ark:

/ _

Michael Merritt .- named \/ Jeannette Smith - co-beneflcia_ry/defendant

“exec'utor ”/defend_ant and Robin L. Apostolakis - attorney/defendant

and David A. Munson - attorney/defendant 1400 Woodloch Forest.Dr., Ste.575

2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200 The Woodlands, Texas 773 80

The Woodlands, Texas 773380 281-367-6555`

Jeannette Smith - co-beneHciary/defendant l Michael Merritt '- named “executor”_/defendant

203 McNair St. g ' and Wynde Merritt - “co-executor” by proxy

Pea Ridge, Arkansas 727 51 8526 Hot Springs Dr.

479-451-8692 g Houston, Texas 77095

281-855-2714

713.~430-6286

List of Documents:

1) This instant Summons and “Count'er-.Complai'nt” and/or “Cross~Complaint in

“Citation” (Rule 99);”

2) “Sworn and Notarized Affidavit of lnterested Party Plaintiff/Co-:Heir David Schied

Affirming Truth in Depicted Content and Certifying the Previous Delivery of All

Evidence to Co-Defendants Michael Merritt and Jannette Smith as Referenced

by the Accompanying ‘Counter-Complaint. . .’ and ‘Formal Joinder. . .’ and as

Referenced by the Previously-Filed ‘Complain't and Brief in Support of

Opposition. ..Motion for Order to Show Cause and to Compel Documents...’ That

Had Also Been Previously Delivered to Michael Mern'tt, Jannette Smith, and

Their Respective Attomeys of Robin Apostolakis and David Munson in Ear/y

November 2014;”

3) “’Counter-Comp/aint’ and/or 'Cross-Complaint’ and Bn'ef in Support of Opposition

to Michael Ray Merritt’s ‘Application to Probate Will and for Letters Testimony’

and Fomi'a/ ‘Joinder’ of Janette Renee Smith as Co-Defendant in Case in Which

Argument Has A/ready Been Pr'esented By Plaintiff/Co-Heir David Schied in

Favor of Probatin'g The Will as ‘Miniment of Tit/e’ 'So to Prese,rve Assets of the

Estate of Michael Edward Schied;”

4) Docket Control Order (2 pages);

5) Expert W'rtness Designation §

6) Certlt" cate of Service completed by lnterested Pan‘y Plaintiff/Co~Princ/'pal Heir

David Schied

* Note that an “original" of all of the above documents PLUS the added documents as

listed below, was also mailed via Certified Mail delivery to the Harris County “C|erk of

the Court” Stan Stanart, at Probate Court No. 1 located at the address cited belo§lv:

§

A) “Statement of Inabllzly to Pay,” §

B) “Motzon for Waiver of Court Costs and Fees and for Filing Documents

Without E-Filing, ” §

C) Self- Addressed Stamped Envelope (SASE) and Cover Letter Written by

David Schied and addressed to Stan Stanart 1n request for time stamps and

return of cover pages for all of the documents listed as #1-6 above and A-B

herein.

Harris County Clerk Stan Stanart l

Administrative Off1ces for Probate §

Court No. 1 §

Harris County Civ'il Courthouse

201 Caroline

Houston, Tean 7 7002

J

vMethocl of Service:

l certify that | served the»‘i‘Citation"l _by certified mail, return receipt requested, as

authorized by Rule 106 (Tx.C.Civ.Proc.) the above-listed documentsl with the intent of

completing this “Pmof'of Sen/ice” with my notarized signature below, once l have

received “retum service” ofthe signature cards connrming delivery of my mailings.

My name i_s Barba'ra Ann Schied. I have no interest in the outcome of this case and have no '

blood or current marriage relationship to the lnterested Par'ty Plaintiyj‘/Co-Pi"incz]r)al Hez"r David

Schied. My date of birth is Ap'ril 6, 1965, and rny preferred contact address is:

2124 Morley Street, Simi Valley, California-, USA

I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing is true and correct.

Executed in Oakland County, State of Michigan on the 14t-h day of January, 2015.

‘ If box is checked then copies of the signed and returned Certified delivery continuation

cards are included with this “Proof of Service ”

< §))<i/\liM/\A §wa §§MW</$`WAL@/

(Decla'rant)

The natural person, Barbara Schied ,appea`red before me on / Q[Q [§ subscribed

and solemnly swore before me on this date, in affirmation and declaration, that the

statements contained above, are true and correct to the best of her knowledge

Subscribed and sworn before me on / 'Qi@ ”[§ in MMJ

County, Michigan" My commission expires on .Qé a 'O_/ ’g@&] 7

acting in County, Michigan

/ (signature of notary)

ei_lnnwisemser_i

Notary Pue|lc- Michigan

i

1

1

l

1

1

0

PROBATE COURT 1

N0. 434,875

IN ma EsrArE oF § m ms PRoBATE couR'T

MICHAEL EDWARD scrm~:r), § No. oNE

DECEAsEn ' § HARRIS coUNTY, TEXAS

orman GRANTING

M_o'TloN FoR No g'vaNcE §'UM"MARY JUDGMENT

on [L_L% 2015, me cot_m considered the Mo'noN ron No EVIDENCE

w ': fSUMMARY JUDGME and alter reviewing the evidence and hearing the arguments, the Court

§ :t`xn_ds there' is no evidence of one or more ofthe following elements of disqualification under Tean

1 Estates Code §304. 003 as plead or objected to in the COMPL_AI_NTAND BRIEF IN SUPPORT

0F OPPOSITION” TO MICHAEL RAY MERRITT’S “APPLICA TION TO PRGBA TE

WILL AND F_OR L_ETTERS TESUMUNY” and “MOTIGN FOK ORDER T0 SHOWCAUSE

AND TO CGMPEL DOCUM§INZS” AND i"OR INJpNCUVE, DECLARATORY AND

OTHER RELIEF IN ACT'lt)NS TAKEN THUS :" FAR AGAINST PLAI`NTIFF’ S

SUR V!VORSHIP RIGHTS, AND TO DETE_R_MINATE THE ACTUAL NECESSI'I'Y AND

DEGREE OF NEED FOR THI_S COURT’S FUR'I'HER lNVOL'VEMENT lN THE

“PK_OB_A TlNG” OF THE REMAIN_ING TERMS OF MICKEY SCHIED’S LAST WILL,,,

AND THE LAST ASPECTS OF “ADMINISTRA UO_N” OF M]CK_EY SCHIED’S ESTATE

and finds that the Motion should be GRANTED. 7

IT IS ’I'H_EREFORE ORDERED that DAVID SCHIED’S COMPLAINTAND BRIEF ii

IN SUPPORT OF 0PPOS11'10N” TO MICHAEL RAY MERRlT’I"S “APPL!CA TION T0 ~~l ~

PROBA TE WILL AND FOR LETTERS TESTIMONI'”’ and “MOTION FOR OKDE_R TO

.-. ._.»_-..._~.,-,..~1-._..,._.__...__..._,-.1___.-1

::_-3.

`§§

1 is 1_~_1 >» 11

1

9 o

SHOW CA USE AND TO COMPEL DQCUMENTS” AND FOR INJUNCTIVE

DECLARATORY AND' OTHER RELIEF IN ACTIONS TAKEN THUS FAR AGAlN

PLA!NTIFF’S SURV[VORSHIP RIGHTS, AND TO DETERMlNATE

NECE__SSITY AND DEGREE QF NEED FOR_ TH_lS COURT

MICKEY SCHIED’S ESTATE is hereby DISMISSED.

This_iu`dgment finally disposes of all parties and all claims and`”is appeal

801de

003

”b \.»¢)’/_

03”\.\3

NE‘.U`J

'. ')\:\

Jl .`.1.\_ )\1.“

1\&:~

)Vx

17"""':"'\§

/ /

Trans_cript of Proceedings Recorded on Audio on 12/ l 9/ 14

In Harris County (Texas) Probate Court No.; l with Judge Loyd Wright Presiding

D': Hello, this is David.

J: (inaudible)

D: Ok, I can barely hear ya’. l’ve’ got my volume turned up as loud as l can here. Wait a second,

1101 There we go, let’s try that,

J: Ok, and we are here on. . .to clarify some things and to uh. . .consider some ofthe pleadings

about. . .regarding the Estate of Michael Edward Schied.

D: Thank you very much. May l ask ah, um,. . .When you say “We are here,” l’d like to know

Wh`o that is and maybe the name of the court reporter in case I need to order a transcript later.

J: The Court Reporter is Don Pyla`nt; and uh, we’re here with Mr. Munson representing, l think,

the proposed executor.

D: Ok. And um, is Don_, uh...could you spell her last name?

J: No, it’s D-o-n, Don. It’s a gentleman. Uh, sometimes he’s a gentleman. P-y-l-a-n-t.

D: “E” as in Edward?

J: No, uh. . .The last name Pylant, P-y-l-a-n-t

D; Ok.

J: “P” as in Paul.

D.: Oh “P."’ Ok, thank you very much. l have a high frequency hearing loss and consonant sounds

are sometimes a problem. Uh, thank you. Are any ofthe parties here at all? ls my sister

represented or anything?

J: I believe she may be in the. . .she is in the courtroom but she’s not at this point in time

participating She’s sitting out in the gallery.

D: Ok, thank you.

J: Alone;.;;._,;.;.Th_is is the only hearing we have today.

Page 1 § EXhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

D: Yes sir, thank you.

J:\ And so, let me. . .let cut kinda’ short circuit some things. . .Uh, you’re pro se, or what we call

pro se, and when you file something initially that challenges or contests or complains about

someone Who may be. . .uh. . .appointed under a wi|l, the language doesn’t have to be precise. It

creates what we call a “contest;"’ meaning . .you disagree that the person who is named in the

will shouldn’t be appointed executor. And from there it becomes a lawsuit. . ._and it can only be

resolved by settlement or a bench trial before me, or ajury trial. So when we get individuals

who aren’t attorneys . .and. . .and, you spent a lot of time putting together things;;suh. . .but we

have to accept that as. . .that this isn’tjust an uncontested appointment anymore, this is a

contested matter that requires the rules of. . .uh. . .discovery, rules of evidence, and

uh. . .becor'nes in fact sort of like a mini-lawsuit about who should Serve as executor. You’re not

challenging the Will, it’s my understanding When you filed. . .and you may want to clarify

th'is. . .but what you filed challenges who should serve as executor.

D: Uh, that correct. . .uh. . .to the point that recently l had found that Texas has

the...uh...l\/luniment ofTitle(?), and I`d like to find out how'. . .and I`uh, uh...under'stand from

the Mu_ni'ment of Title that you don’t even have to have an executor. Uh, we don’t even have to

have a full-blown. ...uh. . .administration of'this thing. A|l we do isjust, uh. . .uh. . .it’s kinda’

like what the u_h. . .;uh Uniform Probate Code says, which is that you call upon the

Court... .uh. . .to handle a few uh. . .simple matters, and. . .and there is no complications with my

brother’s case.-..-The're is no debt to my knowledge Uh, half of the Estate. . .uh. at least all

money portion has been uh. . .uh. . .uh. . .except for a checking account has been disseminated

Uh. . .l have no paperwork of anything That’s the only thing l’m. . .l’ve been askin’ for

information, information, information, and nobody. . .everybody’sjust stonewalling me. And,

and that’s the purpose of my uh.-. .motion for uh. . .uh. . .uh, Show Cause and for uh,

uh. . getting uh. . .to compel documents And uh_. besides that, uh. . .it’s my understanding with

Page 2 - Exhlbit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

this Muniment of Tit|e, uh. . .under Texas law, which is similar to...to the Uniform

Code. . .uh...Probate Coide, which basically asks the Court tojust be involved on uh. . .the

settlement certain simple issues, and that there. . .needs to be no executor, and that’s uh. . .that’s

where l started. . .uh. . .but didn’t know the name of it under 'l`exas law until just recently when l

filed this last motion...l found out it’s called Muniment ofTitle.

J: Well there is that procedure here. . ..and it is in it’s primary. . .one primary uh...requirements

are there are no debts for descendants of the estate and no need for administration Uh, but the

w. .. but the option to. . .choose which way to probate this matter is typically the person named

in the Will. And we have what are called “suspended administration" where...(inaudible

talking with someone else. . .”he was, l’m sorry, he was. . .). . .We’re talking

about. . .uh. . .(inaudible to a man). . .So you represent. ..

D_: Uh, l’d like to...uh§ uh...qu_alify that, that the uh. . .Even though Mr. Merritt...

J: Uh...let me tinish....

De Oh, yes sir,

J: Hang on. . .l’m just talking to. . .(inaudible. . .to Jannette Smith?)...l_s this

you’re. . .(inaudible). . .Ok, so you’rejust observing. . .(inaudible

word). . .Ok.. . .Uh. . .(inaudible). . .(back to phone?) Uh. . .yes1.1We could do a Muniment of

Title as an option, but the person named in the Will who is appointed by the person Who’s

passed away as the executive .. uh, is typically it’s their option as to how to proceed upon the

advice ofcounsel. Uh. . ..and I’ll let Mr. Munson proceed to uh. . .you know, the choice ofhow

this is being probated. . .But. . .y. . .yes. . .you’re right. lt’s. . .lt’s typically there has to be a certain

threshold of requirements to Muniment of Title. But it’s also not mandatory. lt can be uh. . .If

the executor named in the Will_, who ultimately gets appointed, determines that they need

certain things to happen in the Estate, and they need the authority that an executor would have,

then it’s their choice to how to proceed in the probate. Uh. . .now we have a. .. independent

Page 3 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

executor in Texas, is essentially someone who uh. . .serves after they’re appointed without court

supervision, except they file an inventory. So it’s intended to be a very simple, nonacostly

process._.,.;but if. . .t_hen that’s kinda’ where we are. . .uh. . .And I suppose there could be a

discussion of options, but that’s really not my cal|. . .and.-. .the.,.-.the challenge for who is

appointed. .. really creates what can be a fairly expensive process to. . ..not, you know. . .to get

to the point where it’s determined that that person can serve or not serve.

D: May l interrupt sir?

J: Yes

D: Alright, l. . .I have heard you a. . .few times here. . .uh, use the word “‘the” and "person_”

...singular. I don’t think you’ve. . .that that doesn’t indicate you have read the Will-. .The Will

actually names a secondary individual to serve as executor if` the first person finds himse|f. . .or

maybe somebody finds himself not suitable. . .uh, in one way or another. Per the Will, which l

do not contest in any way whatsoever. . .l’m only asking for a reinforcement of it, which dle§

say that there needs to be some pape`rwork, some documentation I can’t remember the

name. . .the. . .the word that was used in the Will, but there needs to be some accountability for

uh. . .the uh, you know. . .what. . .what’s there. . .or what alia there. And so um. . .ah...There is a

secondary person by the name of Clay Drummond, which was written. . .uh. . .very soon into

my. . .my initial filing in objection to. . .uh. . .to Michael Merritt. 15 my whole first file to the

Court explains why l. . .I disagree with Michael Merritt based onlhis past action already to find

him unsuitable and that the next person in line. . .I would have no problem with. . .u_h,,.;doing

all...having all the commands that you’re talking about, including making it a Muniment of

Title and just stepping back- But. ..

J: Weli. . .the problem. . .The problem with that is. . .because. . .just because you say it’s so doesn’t

make it so. That’s why we have lawsuits; and that"s why it becomes a process where you have

to present evidence why someone is unsuitable You can’tju_st state it in a pleading Uh. . ..lf

Page 4 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

things worked out that way then. . .uh. . .the court system wou|djust fail altogether. There’s just

no way to resolve things because one person’s pleadings are gonna’ conflict with another

person’s pleadings, and there’s gotta" be a way to resolve it. . .which is through...a lawsuit. And

so. yes, you have a secondary executor but the primary appointment has to be disqualified or

lawfully found to be unsuitable . .or not able to serve . .before you go to that secondary choice

D: May I interrupt again?

J: lt is not a matter of you writing in a pleading that you don’t think somebody should serve That

isjust not good enough.

D: Well, if...ifyou don’t mind my. . .my interjecting again...l, l believe that what makes “good

enough" is uh...is, is, due process; and uh._..-If something has been filed as l have filed it and

something is not responded to within the uh. . .within the court rules period oftime, which I

think is 21 days plus the Monday following a three day additional period of. . .you know,

uh...something like that. . .uh, and um...And IF one was to consider the so-called ‘“answer” and

“amended answer” oer. Munson,» uh. . .those, uh. . .uh which`were filed fully 30 days by

electronic filing and AFTER l had noticed him on my default n...uh...uh, at the same time l

was trying to c. . .convey something to Kimberly Hightower. . .that um. . .that l had filed

a...because he had not responded and because uh...uh. . .J'ani Smith’s...uh. . .attorney did not

respond to anything that l filed in my initial filing. . .there’s. . .I think that the due process says

that. . .that l’m entitled to a defaultjudgment if l file for a motion for defaultjudgment.

J: No, you’re wrong. 4

D: Ok.

J:v Because...ac. . .actually When he filed his application to appoint his client, Mr. Munson. That

is the initial pleading. You filed something that had challenged the appointment of who would

serve as executor. That. . .that’s the lawsuit. Actually, Mr. Munson had n. . .never filed another

thing, the lawsuit has been joined. . .and. . .un|ess you decide to nonsuit. . .or ya’|l settle it or it

Page 5 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

goes to a bench trial an expensive jury trial...it can’t be resolved. It can be resolved by a

motion for summary judgment down the road if you can prove . .uh. . .through documentary

evidence . .that. . .as a matter oflaw someone shouldn’t be able to serve . .but otherwise, it’s

the . .the. . .documents that have been filed only create a cause of action. They don’t resolve

anything

D: lunderstand. . .uh. . .l. . .l comprehend what you’re saying. l’m just taking a couple ofnotes

here if you don’t mind. .. (pause). . .I would to just say that, um, I have been making every

effort to do what you were talking about which is uh...to uh, find some means of uh,

uh. . .getting uh. . .some kind of remedy besides making this a full-blown trial over the issue . .of

one single issue and that is the suitability ofMichael Merritt. . .which, as you say, l need to

prove uh. . .under uh. . .as a matter of law.

'J:' Well, no, you.,.-.-once y. . .a summaryjudgment would be a Way to prove something in the

matter of law. if you get into a bench trial beforejust me or ajury trial, uh. . .with a six person

jury or a twelve person jury, then you could prevai. ..prevail based on preponderance of the

ev'idence-111which is slightly over fifty-percent So there are ways to. . .to, uh.'. .a summary

judgment is a way that through documentary evidence - paper - you can prevail. . .but you have

prevail there as a matter of law. You have to. . .um. . .show that the other side has really no case

in. . .in it’s. . .can prevail over your case. I got it that. . .it’s sort ofa. . .layperson’s viewpoint of

it, but.,.-. But you uh. . .if you go to a trial, it’s just like any other trial that you’ve probably heard

about or. ._.or are familiar with. ln a civil matter. it’s. . .the test is a preponderance ofthe

evidence So if ajury found someone to be unsuitable based upon a preponderance of the

evidence . .uh. . .and was a 5-1 or l0-2 verdict uh. . .then you, then you would prevail. l mean if

you’ve got a person, someone to agree, or me or thejury that a particular individual shouldn’t

serve under the Estates Code. . .then you would prevail in that. l. . .I mean l wouldn’t. . .I know

you have . .uh. . .reservations about who will serve l mean. .. the whole point is. . .is that you

Page 6 '- Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

need to prove Why that person shouldn’t serve . .and they would then have the opportunity to

defend themselves and offer contradictory evidence

D: Yes sir, Well, and....and Judge Wright. ifum...I may...uh that uh...what you called an ans...l

guess . .The initial action Was the application and...my. . .what l had filed as a Complaint and

Objection and a Motion for...uh. . .Show Cause...uh...you...if, ifl got you right...you

considered that something of an answer to the initial filing. But that included a motion.

And. . .so far, you know, l’m not gettin’ service from the Court on the motion that l filed

because it was a motion for Show Cause and to Compel Documents And so, do we need to go

to a summary hearing and trial before motions are heard_. because l think that the..,the court

rules said that motions get heard first. And that’s part of the. . scheduling conference, l

guess. . .uh... .you know to set all that thing up months ahead of how We’re going through

discovery and all that other kinda’ stuff. l. . .what l was sayin’ before was l’ve been tryin’

to. . .to circumvent all this myself byjust communicating with my sister_, but she’s not. . .She’s

not talking to me one iota. And...and she hasn’t been, and all l’m askin’ for is

documents. . .and...and

J: That...that’s part of the discovery process l mean you can uh...file a request uh...to answer

interrogatories or request for production Uh...There are all sorts of discovery documents that

you can file to try to obtain documents...uh...that are relevant to what you...uh...what you file

A Show Cause has to be...uh...ifthere’s an Order of Show Cause issued, which l don’t believe

there has been, that order is then served with the Motion for the pleading on the individuals

who has to be produced to show-cause, and then they appear based on that Show Cause. So

really you haven’t...uh...The Show Cause hasn’t been done in the proper manner.

D: Well uh...

J: You have to understand you’re talking to people who have uh...my staff has served under three

different probate judges l’m just a layman...and...l was a probate attorney for 27 years S'o

Page 7 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

your...your putting a lot ofeffort into this...and your gonna’ get heard...and the issue you

seem to be concerned about isjoined. So uh...but that’s where we are right now. All you’ve

created is a lawsuit. And...uh...you can do certain things You can have a hearing on certain

days Uh...For instance if you file a request for production or interrogatories and they’re not

responded to in a timely fashion. You can do a motion to compel. And there are all sorts of

things you can do. But even as a pro se person...uh...representing themselves But..,.but we’re

just in the initial stages of a lawsuit. l mean that really where we are Then you get a docket

control order'which sets out a bunch of deadlines for things to occur to completing discovery.

So that’s really where we are today. There’s,...othe'r` than me confirming with you and you

uh,..don’t want the first person named in the Will to serve, which then creates the lawsuit that

l’ve been referencing. l mean that’s about all we can do. If...lfyou hadn’t filed what you

filed...and l’m not saying that’s right or Wrong..~.what would have happened is this would have

been put on a non...uh...contested uncontested Will docket. The Will would have been admitted

to probate This person would have been then appointed, and then they would have 90 days to

file an inventory of assets and they would proceed with administering the Estate under the

Will..-.and doing what the Will told them to do. Uh...but we have...uh...contests all the time to

individuals serving...Uh, but that all we ar...but that where we are right now;. Uh, there’s

nothing summarily today that can be done There’s no default. There’s no uh...There’s nothing

l can say definitely as to whether this person should serve or not as we sit here today.

D: That uh...l comprehend what you are saying sir. Um...l did wanna’ uh...clarify something that

l also heard you say, because l am listening to what you’re saying. Ah, you said that the...the

person uh...for the Show Cause would have to be served. Well I did serve my sister, and l

served...the’|l...there are only two that are involved and l served them both.'..

J: Well

D: ...with the Show Cause motion.

Page 8 '- Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit

J: The service is...Your...your concept of service is different from what’s required. Service on a

Show Cause requires a constable...you know, a

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.