# David Schied v. Michael Ray Merritt > Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · December 23, 2015 URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4075046 ## Case - **Court:** Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) - **Decided:** December 23, 2015 - **Precedential status:** Published - **Opinion:** Opinion - **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library ## Citator (automated) - No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases. - Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4075046 ## Opinion text 1 @»-~/~/5~004 /£'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'“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 . 1aned u`sP`s Faemry ALLE`N PARK, Ml 45101 Navembem, 2014 ,e:os pm mfg "" usps °"'"’ ALLEN PAR»smm or 'rracr 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!."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 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$ 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 .___Q¢a._u.___2________> 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 _ _.?§e__"ounmnnas_nn §>__o~_m__& . _ __ __ _B_E§.>~_.___E._m__£___ P .n_._.__en§_>_en.n€.__.n _ _ §“Nmn__§____n~ _mun.__ ___,m______n>o E_.._ _m__n“__. n._n____nw_ __… nonnu=_w__m_xmz_w_.____ ____ _o.__E__z____._oSu! F'edéx Ar\ci|lary Cl(-zarance Sezrv)r Softwam § © FedEx 1995-2015 F 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 wrote: > Frorn: David Schied > 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 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 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$.mai'l;yahoo.com/neo/b/message?sMid=O&§d=Frien. .. URGENT RESEND|NG: Wrong draft of motion sent in last email wednesday December 11, 2014 e;24 m From: "David Schied" ' To: Kimberly.i-tightower@prob.hctx_net dmun_son@dayidamunsonpc.com janlofpr@yahoo.com Susie.Rowley@Pron hctx.net robin.apostolakis@gebtawyers.com l cc: lamagranny$@cox.net 1 Ft`tes tesl re "Kimt_>e_riy 1F'iies 163»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 > Subject RE: 434,875 - Schied Estate - Schedu|ing Confer'ence > To: "Kimberly (Probate Cou'its)nghtower" > , "Sharon Hay" , "Susle (Probate Courts)Rowley" > >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) > wrote: > > Subject; RE: 434.875 - > Schied Estate - Schfeduling Conference > To' >"David Schied" > C.¢ "mmdel@zammm" > >"Sharon Hay" . >“Rowiey, Susie (Probate Courts)" . '>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!’ _ ` re David smiedr`ldé§éiiéa@yaho$f¢bn§"_ cc susre(Probare couns)"Rowley" "DavidA'.wiliririson""¥iii'nuns;héaavrdamun's'eripc.com>"lt robin.aposto|akis@geblawyers.oom" §l Sharon Hay" David Schied received 30,000 from the estate back in October, so l am unclear as io why he is asking for fees to be waived. in my opinion, if he want's to put a stop to things moving forward, then he SHOULD have to pay for that himseif. Sincerely, Jani Smith (his sister) Sent from my iPhon`e On Dec 4, 2014. al 10:18 AM, David Schied wrote: > Dear Ms, Rowley, > > Please accept the attad'ir'nent that has gone out in today's mall as served upon the other parties and their counsel, by this emai|, and by First Class Mall. Plea`se note that the attached Motion requests for Orders to be delivered WlTHOUT ORAL HEAR|NG. > ` ' ‘ > Thank you. > > Cordially yours, - > David Schied > . > Disclaimer: This e-mall is covered by the Electronic Communication anacy Act. 18 U.S.C. Sectlon 2510»2521 and ls legally privileged The accompanying message a`nfd an`y' attachments are for the s`ole use of the intended recipients and ma`y contain proprietary and/or confidential information which may be privileged o_r otherwise protected horn disclosure Any unauthorized review, us_e, disclosure or distribution is prohibited |f you_ are not the ` attachments to the original message Thank you for your cooperation > l of 1 ` . 1_2/4/2014 2.:30 PM RE: Casé: 434875 - Motion for Default Judgment on No Challenge https://us-mg$.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) 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" . "DavidA. Munson" . "Jani Smith" , ~ "robin apostolaki$@cw" C¢- “Shamn Hay" 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 ” » 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, an officer of the Court...uh...Harris County constable usually...or someone else substituting for that constable to take documents and go to the individual who you want served, and to personally serve it on them. You’ve served documents under uh...missing terms of getting it to the attorney and even the individuals But a show cause requires somethin’ persona|...lt’sjust like a lawsuit. lt requires it to be handed to that person...uh...personally. D: Alright, l’m comprehending what you’re saying there and...and... J: Let me_..let me clarify, what starts a probate matter’s a little different...andjust under the statutes...When you file an application to probate a Will there is issued a...a citation, which you may have seen a copy of, that requires you to respond within a certain period of time through the probate if you have al..a challenge or a contest. That kinda’ notice is posted at the...at the courthouse lt’s uh...And so it’s a notice to the general public. lt’s not like a constable handing you a copy of a lawsuit. So that’s..'.and that’s proper. l mean that’s the way service is done in these Will matters And so now you...you’ve had notice that that’s occurred. You filed your pleading which is getting the most important part that you don’t want that person to serve And so we have two allegations We have...well we have an allegation that the Will should be probated; and then we have an allegation for a.'..a...uh...an attempt to appoint someone under the Will to serve as executor and you`ve challenged through your uh...pleadings...that that person should serve So that...that’s the challenge And each side now has the opportunity to prove their things You can prove that uh...with evidence you can prove, you know, using the statutes and the laws of the State of Texas, you can prove - if you can - that that person shouldn’t serve, and that Munson would say, or would challenge that and say “no, he should serve"’ and here’s why. And you bring forward your evidence He brings forward his evidence, and there’s a decision by ajudge or ajury... lPage 9 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit D: l see. Um, and uh...As an alternative to all ofthat...uh...the...the applicant Michael Merritt, if he wanted to, could step back and withdraw his application as well. I would imagine J: He...he could. l mean the individuals can take...uh...whatever actions they...they want to. l mean you....you...there can be a settlement in some fashion. l don’t know what becomes to that would be, and l don’t know if...you know each side...all parties have to agree to the settlement D: l totally agree a...a... J: And that’s something that can happen. l’m just trying to tell you that...that if...it...it will be probably uh...I would say it’d be a half-day trial...to a day...and...and there would be discovery. Uh, whatever allegations you think you can prove...and Mr. Munson would...you know, do his due diligence on behalf of his client. And so, he’s not...it’s...it’s gonna’...lt would be a fairly expensive process for a small estate Uh...but for what l’m gathering..,it’s essentially in the grand scheme of things a fairly small estate lt doesn’t mean its small in meaning Ijust means in terms of cash value, it’s not...it’s not a large estate It’s a...So, so that’s where you are I mean l would suggest that...that you try to.;.~.you know I know there’s a lot of personal history in this There always is in a family and...and...who should serve and...l would just suggest you try to uh...You know you also should try to approach this as a practical matter which it sounds like you have in a...in a way when you suggest Muniment ofTitle. l don’t...l don’t know ifthat would a-...an option.»..uh...But...but it just gets expensive and...it...The primary basis for you to challenge somebody serving is if you don’t think they will do what the Will says And...it is in layman’s terms...and if you...That’s where we are Beca`use you just basically want to make sure that...whatever you’re awarded or uh...divised and bequeathed under the Will comes to you;, And that’s the bottom line..That’s what made in thejudgment...and...you Want to try to minimize debt and expenses and maximize what comes to the beneficiaries So._..I’m not trying to tell you what to do...but...but what you’ve done is essentially created something that precedes event of significance Page 10 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit D: Well, and that’s based on...as you caught it...the uh...the premise that...that I disagree with uh..,.and based on all the evidence that nobody’s heard and nobody’s looking at, and l have to go through a whole lengthy process to...to prove...Ah...because I’ll only be submitting the same things that l...l’ve submitted before, and any discovery done on me is already in the file Ah...so...l’ve mean l’ve been merry-..;.been very meticulous to making sure that everything that’s been associated with this case is already in the Court file. lt’s,just making sure that the Court actually gets it filed once l send it to ‘em that’s what uh...seemed to be the problem. J: Well we...we’ve gotten...We..We don’t. Here’s the way it goes now especially and the rules are more difficult actually for the pro se pleading or can be because we have shifted to E-filing which is electronic filing...mean`ing we can accept paper....in certain circumstances we can accept paper and basically try to help out pro se to advance their point of view. But specifically now we’re in an electronic filing system where things, you know, file digitally and electronically; and uh_...So that’s...That’s where...That’s been a little bit ofa problem. We’ve got, to my knowledge what you’ve filed. So Mr. Munson has the allegations...uh...and ya’ll just...and we’ll just let him...uh...you know, absorb those allegations and see what he thinks and what his client thinks; and then ya’|l ‘ll talk about how you want to uh...to handle this...to...to see if it can be resolved in some fashion. D: Uh...l’m just saying there Um...Uh, l appreciate your giving me this time also. Ah, that the a... uh...one ofthe two things is that um...uh...and...and l’d like to address ‘em both before uh;..;letting any one ofthem be a counter....in any wayt..Uh, one ofthem isn that uh...uh...you want Mr. Munson to think about the uh...this filing stuff and...and reflect on this uh._..the E- fil_ings...but I think that should be thought about for both of us because while l’ve been reading the Court rule, and l placed it in my mostrecent motion today, and that is that Mr..._l\/lr. Munson, despite the E-filing rule that says l have to be signing something in writing in order to accept service by e=mail-, uh..l\/lr. Munson seems to take it upon himself to serve me any way Page 11 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit he wants to, in email and otherwise....and l disagree with that because l made myself clear and l put that evidence in the record as well that uh...that l do not wish to be served uh...by e- mai|...that uh... l don’t want to take the chance of my private e-mail being spammed. l"ve got a lot of stuff in here and reason why l don’t want to be served by email. And uh...l...l’ve been trying to be c...compliant with the service of everything by uh...by mail myself...and uh...and according to the Court rules l’d just like to make sure that everybody’s just playing ny the rules instead ofjust doing whatever they feel like doin’. That’s number one The second thing is that uh, uh...uh...l\/lr. Munson does not represent my sister. And uh...l have been making every effort that l can to contact my sister, to...to leave uh, text messages uh...to uh...to work...try to get my mom...to uh to you know, to have my sister, you know, my sister is telling my mom s_he"s gonna’ be sending pictures of what she took out of the house and...and took out of state, and see...but she seems to be having this social life thatjust...and her busy-ness of her daily busy-ness isjust....she’.s too busy to take care of any of this stuff. And so _l can understand how all ofthat...You know it’s not just my filing here sir that is costing this Estate l think that everybody, all these parties named...You know Mr...l\/lr. Merritt could step back. He could uh, he could say, you know if he did step back, l do have th...the follow-up question of if he did step back can this still go to Muniment of Title um, uh...you know w....without him accepting the...thejob of executor. Um...and uh...so there’s..There’s multiple parties here that l think all have responsibility to this estate of my brother’s. l’m just simply sayin’ based on the f...based on the evidence that...that we may have to go through a long lengthy process of discovery for me to be able to make part of the record AGAIN, and to formally serve it according to all the court rules of discovery and evidence and all the other kind of stuff...and then to present it ag...at trial...that uh...we can do that. That’s my part. That"s my responsibility But let’s take a look, you know, l’m hoping that Mr. Munson Will ask his client to take a look at what...What his responsibility is to this estate, and if me as a beneficiary does not want him - based on our Page 12 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit past interactions - which w...was basically...lt’s all in the file..uh...and my sister doesn’t want to take a step back and...andjust provide me with documentation that l’ve been asking for for a long time and just be straightforward ab...about what she"s taken out of the house and everything then...Yeah, l guess we all need to...to follow due process and we’ll move this thing forward r... regardless of how much is left in the Estate_. You know l...;l"m following through with mine...l’m just asking for everybody to just stop what they’re doing and just be...put it all on the table And if l have to go through the whole lengthy due process to do it, l guess that’s what l have to do, sir. .l: Well...l...l wasn’t going to criticize you for what you did uh...in terms ofthe contest. That happens all the time so...l’m just trying to make you understand...or help you understand that...everything that happens in a litigated matter uh...can be a cost to the Estate, which diminishes the Estate So l’m just...That’s my...lt’sjust a caveat that everybody to think it through in_these..in these battles and fights...to think through the ultimate goal, which is to maximize what you get out of the Estate And that’s really uh...an admonishment to everybody. So uh... D: Thank you. J: Mr. Munson uh...is here uh...and l mean he’s heard you uh...l...He knows that l always tell individuals that there ought to be full disclosure Um...and, and...that everything should be laid on the table just to see where everybody stands...um...to...to..tto have everybody have the feeling that they have full knowledge of what’s going on. So uh...I...l understand that you are now, after this hearing you are going to have a hearing to set up what we call a Docket Control Order. Uh...There’s two ways to go and frankly, after you do the docket control order...at any point in tijme, with the cooperation of all the parties, you all can reach a settlement This order, the docket control order, just gets it on a track for trial; and, it doesn’t mean all the things that are said in that docket control order has to happen or uh...That all that uh...effort and expense Page 13 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn andy Notarized Affidavit has to occur. ltjust says, “Here’s your time frame. Here is your uh... calendar of events; and everybody’s gonna’ operate under that time frame, that calendar.” And then uh...in the meantime, again the matter can be resolved at any point in time and uh...the uh...whatever the settlement is and the parties will abide by the settlement, and everybody will move on. D: l comprehend that. J: Ok. So...l mean we’re at the early stages is what l’m trying to say ofuh...ofthis matter. And so it can be resolved at any point in time after this date. D: l.,..l...l un...see that aa...we"ve already been going three months now so...you know it’s uh...could be a long ride or a short one, depending on uh...all parties, l guess. J: Right. Right, well that’s (chuckle) that’s the way l...and many times the parties uh...spend about a month fighting over things...and they end up with an agreement that they could have made at the inception. And that’s just the way, you know, that when these things become litigated and there’s uh...big family issues involved and.,.persona,lities involved,- that’sjust the way things go. So my...my goal is to always tell families....lt"s hard...to try to think in terms of the economics of it. And...and just get it done and move on because...and l’ve said this of life in general...Nothing is going to fix what’s gone on between families for decades. And to...to waste time and effort and to make it...may take a large part of your life...uh...for anybody...l...my uh...my admonition is to resolve it and move on and be reasonable and,.,and try to uh...flgure out a...way to come to a meeting of the minds. D: Well, and l think that’s what my brother had in mind by selecting a second person in mind for executor and uh...So...l’m with ya’. J: When somebody does a Will, and and...l mean, they’re the decedent and, they’re the person who uh...took the time to think though their Will. And when they name somebody, it’s a...again, these contests happen all the time but it’s a...pretty sacred appointment, l mean it’s...unless that person is really found to be unsuitable...that was what the decedent wanted and Page 14 - Exhibit #4 to Swor`n a_nd Notarized _Affid_avit that’s what we first hope to honor. And that can change based on evidence but,...but that.-..The fact that they named a secondary person doesn’t...doesn’t necessarily mean that...it doesn’t impact the first appointment which is the...is the primary appointment..-.that’S the first person the decedent thought about when they did their Will. D: And sir, l...l might add my own caveat to that...l...l..,l totally agree with everything you’ve been saying and l...again l want to tell you how much l appreciate your...l’m grateful to the amount oftime you’re taking explaining all ofthis when you...you’re not a legal advisor here in this situation. Um...that uh...uh...l have um...l had the same feeling about that for the first month after my brother’s death, but...in spite ofthat month...lt’s all in writing and it’s all of my fir...my very first filing as the basis for me not wanting Michael Merritt i_n there and uh...lt’s...it’s...it’s straightforward; and so it’s...it"s...l made evidence out of it. l c...l’ll resubmit it again. lt’s my reason. lt’s...lt’s...Othe`r than that, l totally agree. lt-.._.it,..'.l was willing t_o accept that. .l: Here’s what you have to do though too, just...and l know you know this but...with along with your allegations on one day, the trial day uh...or...then- everybody shows up and they have their witnesses and their documents, and they admit their evidence and their testimony and then somebody else...some third-party ofjudge or jury decides the outcome. And that’s why the pleadings. And there is certain...when l mention summaryjudgment...there are certain types of pleading where you don’t have to go to ajury or ajudge and a trial, that you can present enough evidence uh...where you win in a se...as a matter of law. That’s not...it’s fairly rare that that happens. But otherwise, from that day the trial is set uh...you present all your evidence and then uh...you’re get decided up. And that’s how it’s...that’s how it’s resolved by a trial. Uh, in the meantime you and l\/lr. Munson, and l believe your sister has an attomey, can all...l mean there should be a way to communicate and discuss how to go with the matter of resolve. D: l woulda’ thought. 1 Page 15 - Exhibit #4 to Sworn and Notarized Affidavit J: Well, let’s not. Mr. Munson’s here... and l uh.'.. Again he’s heard everything l’ve said, uh so uh...Like l guess what it...Let it percolate. Ya’ll ‘ll get your docket control order; and then, ya’|l can continue to try to figure out Ways to resolve it with the bottom line being.'.. that as cost effectively as possible each beneficiary gets what they’re entitled to. l mean that’s really, in simplest terms, that’s what we’re trying to do...what...what the probate process is trying to do. So..».everyone keep that in mind and we’ll...we’ll just keep...keep going until ya’ll settle or try it. And l don’t mind giving it an early trial date because l don’tthinkthei , /. gonna:; serveislt’s gonna’ cost the Estate money, but it’s not a complicated process. Either the person is suitable or their unsuitable. Ah...You know, either there’s valid reason they shouldn’t serve or there (sic) not. And so that’s...that’s what we’re trying to resolve. D: Well it would seem to me that uh...uh...that ifl gave u.h...them enough time to do their own discovery and ali th'is, that uh...it...it...it’d b.oii down to me just asking them trth@uifl\xhdf motion for s’ij'r'nmary"p:riq _ the tile then ah?»;:»you knuf know uh...conside,rifn§;th'e a\m<>unt;f“titm.e§ thati»`yo_u_§§v§:already' spenruhin,youknow wh eth”er§?you’ re : going to d`e:""r,i"y`;my "uli_“'.:,',.;iny;n`ioti`on today for.l)j¢tiatétoty Rulmg theryoure going,dh§:.l'_§:;=.it.;.;,Il’,;v"¢lalrea,d§?h“ééfd“you say / .`».!.i"t sound§§'jttji§t`ji¢§like your gonhajjldeny/default‘j’u'cigm¢rit`§iahd ,uh.'..i"m`:ju’§t §§ t gorin §Yvi?)riltts.s`i Wh€r.0 B_ox1378 - :'Novl Michigan 48376 4_ :__248-347 168_4_ 4 ' .j -; Exh.i;-b-i;t ,#3: E 'PR¢BATE vouRT No 11 ; ':OF HARRIS coUNTY, TEXAS rn the Estate of~l Mr¢hae_l,Edward Schwd Deceased David Schied, ;_ '.`.::"»:'- ' "::` " lnterested Party Plazmij'/ 4 v ' 4 '_ ' Prlnclpal Co-Hecr l i_fvs." n in ‘ :M'i_chael Merritt (named executor”) and Wynde Merritt (“co-executor” by Janette Rejnee_ Smith ' 1 ; 4_ 4 _ 1 _ __ ;. l proxy) _ Robrn_Apostolalus . l" ' -' . ' ‘ 4 ' ; _ 4_ l .»David~_Munson 1 v 4 . ' " "" Co-Defendants 4 _ - / t * '_ NOTICE oF APPEAL 1 » ‘ z ON‘ INTEj “*ocU"r‘ ' :RY AND FmAL JuDGMENT MATrERs T(_) BE INCLUDED lN THE OFFIClAL COURT RECORD- NOTICE OF INACCURACIES IN THE TRIAL COURT “DOCl{ETING” RECORP lN NEED T.O CORRECT DATES .F “FILING” AND DOC-,j ' EN* .: CAPTIONS "_ David schled Sw- Jum Jeannerte Smrth co-benet`rcrary n '_Mrchael(named executor) and p 0 iBox 1378 __. » lamd Robin L Apostolakrs, attorney __Wynde Memtr (executor by prob ) “ Novi, Michigan 48376 G'auntz-,' Earl,- & Birmey, LLP- ' ,~an_'d David A.` Munson ' ' v 243_347~‘1684 _- . 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr., _St_e 575 i '1_2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200 _ . f ‘ 1. The Woodlands Texas 77380 The Woodlands, Téx'as 77380 281_36745555 ' .. . 23;1~2103467 . - .~;Jeannette Smith c_o- beneficiary Michael Merritt arid Wynde Memtr 203 M¢N`ai__r` Sx ‘ 1 ' _ -4 'j-j85_26 H6t Sprir_rgs Dr. :.. f -'Pe'a Ri`dg.e', Arkansas 72751 ' ' `- ;; -' ~ .-_ ;: Houston, -Téxas 77095 " » . 479.451.3692 “ '_ 281-855-2714 . ,_; "~';-"13-430-6286 _ ` '_ed Par:y lemr_g“vprmcqml codHe¢r Davrd Herem rs nouce 'that I Schled 15 appealmg th¢ Order Gran mg.Motwn for N_o EvzdencevS ma § `-f " ` '.Tr C. Case # 434,875 Christopher A. Prine, Clerk of the Court, Clerk ~ FrRsT couRT oF APPEALS l l § 1 , .. §§u;§`r:`¥e,§§§‘%d§d§§@§wess RE: Case 'style= David earned .*~\ 0001372104JuN 11 2015 v. Michael Ray Merritt, Wynde Merritt, Jeannette Smith The case was filed in this Court On-Ma 2015 Unless appellant* Q015, the Court may dism‘ wthe appeal. Séé 2 David Schied P.O. BGX 1378 _ Novi, MI 48376 § '"|)r""')rrr'.'l-r)rr.l""'1-}"H"r"'~‘hr".'.'l’.rtii.l'§r'i'r'lrlll § . 1 - - 1 fit ` David Schied P.O. Box 1378 Novi, Michigan 48376 248-347-1684 deschied@y.ahoo.com 6/12_/ 1 5 Attn: Mr. Christopher Prine, Clerk of the Court c/o Court of Appeals for the First District of Texas 301 Fannin Street Houston, Texa_s 77002-2066 Re: l) Timely filing of completed Brief on Appeal...; 2) Request for time-stamped copies returned via SASE Dear Mr. Prine, Enclosed you will find TWO copies (one bound and the other unbound) of the instant filing of “Brief on Appeal...” Please note that there is no “Appendix of Exhibits” or any number of exhibits are being submitted since I have carefully designated the names of all the filings in the lower courf,- which I have requested be sent to the Appellate court for review, along with added designation of the Transcript of Oral Hea'ring on 12/19/14 that I submitted earlier with my “Notice of Appea_l ...” and accompanying documents I have noted somewhere in the Rules of Appellate Procedure that in the event that I Wish to submit my own transcripts of a proceeding, then I wil_l be entitled to get a copy of the Court’s transcript for that date (at no charge) so that all parties to this action may be furnished with that Court copy for comparison Please let me know, as a litigant Without an attorney and with the inability to pay costs and 'fees, how I may get that court transcript, indeed copies of any and a_ll lower court transcripts for this case. Please note that my “ erti[zcation of Comgl§qnce” with maximum word count i_s at the last page of the "Brz'efon Appea ...” Enclosed you will also find my “ erri[zc_ate 01 Service” showing that I served all of the named co-ap'pellees with the.following documents: l) Cover Page, Table of Contents, Statement of Jurisdiction, Index of Authorities, and body documents totaling 46 pages consisting of “Brief on Anneal of Harris County Probate Case With Evidence of Degrivation of Rights to Due Process Under Color 01 Law, and Dem'al of Egual Treatment by Judge Loyd Wright 01 Litigant Without An Attor`n'e`y”. 2) This “Certiticate of Service” As always, attached to this letter is a Self-Addressed Stamped Envelope (SASE) with extra copies of the cover pages of the “Brief on Appeal...” and the “Certificate of Service”. Please “time-stamp” and return them at your earliest eonvenienee. IN THE TEXAS COURT OF APPEALS In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied, David Schied, Deceased lnterested Pa`nj) Plaintiff/ VS Principal Co-Heir Case No. 434875 Michael Merritt (named “e_xecutor”) and Wynde Merritt (“co-executor” by Janette Renee Smith proxy) Robin Apostolakis David Munson y Co-Defendants / CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / June 12, 2015 Appe'llant: David Schied - Sui Juris P.O. Box 1378 Novi, Michigan 48376 248-347-1684 Co-Defendants and Known Counsel Jeannette Smith - co-beneticiary and Robin L. Apostolakis, attorney Gaunte', Earl, & Binney, L__LP ' 1400 Woodloch Fo`rest Dr., Ste.575 The Woodland's, Tean 773 80 281-367-65_55 Michael (named executor) and Wynde Merritt (ex_ecutor by proxy) and David A. Munson 2002 Timberloch Pl., Ste. 200 The Woodlan_ds, Texas 77380 281-210-3467 Michael Merritt and Wynde Merritt 8526 Hot Springs Dr. Houston, Texas 77095 281-855-2714 7l 3-430-6286 Jeannette Smith - co-beneficiary 203 McNair St. Pea Ridge, Arkansas 72751 479-451-869`2 lof2 l hereby certify that on 6/20/ 15 I sent by U-.S. Post Office delivery to the Tean Court of Appeals, as well as to the above named five named co-appel_lees (Michael Merritt, Wynde Merritt, J annette Smith, David Munsom and Robin Apostolakis) at the addresses also indicated above, individual copies of the following documents: l) Cover Page, Table of Contents, Statement of Jurisdiction, Index of Authorities, and body documents totaling 46 pages consisting of “ rie[ on Appeal of Harris County Probate Case With Evidence of Deprivation of Rights to Due _P,roc_ess, Under,.Co_lor zoch_lw, and Denia_l_ofEa¢ual_ Treatmenzf by Judge Lovd Wright of Litl'gant Without An Attornev” 2) This “Certiflcate of Serviee” Respectfully submitted, t ‘ ' t 20f2 W'.-’mm Wompm"s ns m TEXAS count or APPEALS JUN 1 s 2015 CHH!BTOFHER 4 PHWE In the Estate of Michael Edward Schied, mem Deceased \ ' David Schied, Case No.. 434875 lnterested Party Appellanz/ Prilicipal Co-.Heir vs , - Michael Merritt (named “e,xecutor”) and Wynde Merritt '(“co-executor” by Janette Renee Smith proxy) Robin Apostolakis David"Munson Co-.Appell_ees BRIEF ON APPEAL OF HARRIS COUNTY PROBATE CASE WITH EVIDENCE OF DEPRIV-ATI_ON OF RIGHT TO DUE PROCESS UN_DE_R COLO-R OF LAW» AND DENIAL OF EQUAL TREATMENT BY JUDGE LOYD WRIGHT or _L.m'GAN'r wrruoUT A_N Arroasr.v - ._ / _`1\£_0_ o_RAL AnGUMENT rs REQmR_ED June 12, 20'15 C;o-.A ';ell_ee_s and Known Counsel A liar-rt . _ ._ ,,, Jannette Smith - co~b_eneficlary Michael (named e_xecutor) and , David Schied- Sui :Iuris and Robin L_ Apps¢pla'kis, augmey Wynde`Mecritt:(~axecutor'bypr'oxy) _PO\ B,Q’§ 1§78 , . »'eamts, asst &.Binnsy,'~tnr mdma-_d_ A. Munson N‘?"?’ Wth 48376 1409 woodmen weston suss"/s 2002 Timbsrlosh Pl.,:sre. 200 " 248'347'1634 The woodlands, texas 77st __ m woodland;s, rean mso' '28‘1-3'67_6555 231-.-2110-3467 ‘ Jsm¢ss smim-ss-bm¢asimy MichaelMen-i'n and wysd~e Merritt zos'M¢Nsir st gases Ho: springs ns Pea mdg¢,. Arkansas 72751 Houston, Texas 77095 479-45'1-8692 281-855-2~714 , 7134':30@286. 12, . . §§ j= l .' ‘ s Exhibit _#1* ' ~ f'1 bf?THE PROBATE COURT No. 1 _» or HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS In the Estate ot'Mlchael Edward Schled g :` ,4: … ,;Ui:”_; §_ -David Schied, . ' lnterested Party Plamtlff/ _ ‘ ` Principal Co-H_eir 1 - ‘ ` -- vs‘ ' ' -' Michael Merritt (named “executor”) and Wynde Me`\.‘?"_i\`»f (“c@"’x¢¢ &\’” by§ 4 Janette R`jel`le`e Smith j - z 1 PI`Q’KY) Robin Apostolakis ' ' ' ‘ »-. _ § David Munson " bold-Defendants __ AFFIDAVIT OF. ]NDIGENCE AND STATEMENT OF INABILITY TO l’AY / COURT COSTS AND FEES ON APPEAL OF PROBATE COURT RULING ,\_`;\ -. ;- David Schied- SurJurzs Jeannette Smith- co-benet` clary _ y ~,j ,\=Mlchael (namedexecutor) and P.. O. Bo'x 1378 . _ -' _ l§and Robin L Apostolak1s, attorney >Wynde Merritt (e.xecuwr by praxy) 'Novi, Michigan 48376 Gaunte Ea'r|,- & Binney~, LLP -- 'F -..and DavldA Munson _ 248- 347- 1684 ` ~ 1400 Woodloch Forest Dr Ste. 575 2002 Tlmberloch Pl_`., Ste__. _"00 ‘ The Woodlands,'l'exas 77380 TheWoodlands,'l"exas771__04l v JeannerteSmxth co-benet'clary ‘ ' » ~- . ~: ' 7 . Apnl~'zo', 2015 ' _ Pea ldg Arkansas72751 ;_1»-479_4513692 ' WHEREFORE lnterested Pa__rry Plazntzf"/ Prmmpal Co~Helr David Schied 4 relies upon Tean Rules cfAD_D§llate Pro 20 l aj 2: (“Esrablz h g , “A parry w'710 cannot pay the costs in an appellate cburt mby proceed z » ':_: ;_wzthout advanced payment of costs_,gf a)_ A parngles and @Yiddvlf ofmd’ge”°`e m ' .` tr)lzel))files a notwe ¢fappe In accordance Wlth the above cited rule l David Svhledi ;_.‘-g- v ',` ` following information in compliance with Texas Rules of‘Clv"' Ij_." cAsE: 01 -1 5-00466-cv DATE FlLED: 05/20/2015 CASE TVPE: lNTERLOCUTORY STYLE: DAV|D SCH|ED V.: MlCHAEL RAY MERR|T|', WYNDE MERR|TT, JEANNE`[TE SM|TH OR|G PROC: NO' rRAN`sF"E'R FRoM: TRANSFER lN: TRANsFl-:R cAsE: TRANSFER To: TRANsFER oUT: P`ua sE`vac`E: APPELLATE BR|EFS DATEv EVENT TYPE DESCRIPTION DOCUMENT 1 BRIEF’ FlLED # oRAL ARGuMENT NOT .' 06/15/2015 j REQUESTED § APPELLANT BRIEF [pDF/ze.zz MB] CASE EVENTS DATE EVENT TYPE DESCRIPTION DIS POSm'ON DOCUM ENT 09/28/2_015 09/0_2/2015 08/19/201»5 08/10/2015 08/10/201_5 08/_10/2015 08/05/2015 07/08/2015 07/06/201»5 06/30/2015 06/23/2015 06/23/2015 06/17/2015 06/16/2015 0'6/15/2015 j NOHCE FlLED 1 APPELLANT f MOHON 10 Dlless § FILED RECORD SENT ' MOTION FI'LED DOCUMENT FILED § cERnFchTE OF i szkvl_cE FlLED l AMENDED BRIEF DUE . APPELLEE z APPELLEE APPELLANT APPELLANT ' APPELLANT APPELLANT REPORTERS RECORD ' 4 Due REPORTERS RECORD ' FILED LETI`ER FILED COURT REPORTER COURT REPORTER . APPELLANT DOCUMENT FlLED ' oRDER ENTERED z ExTENsloN oF mle TO FILE REPORTERS RECORD DISPOSED DOCKETI.NG ! sTATEMENT FlLED j COURT REPORTER APPELLANT ' BRIEF FlLED - oRAL : ARGUMENT NOT REQUESTED APPELLANT l Iss`UE suA sPoN'T"E oRDER MOHON OR WRlT _ GRANTED [ CORRESPONDENCE PDF/E Ms 1 [ E)DF/85 . NOTICE KB] § NoncE oF APPEAL 05/1_2/2015 j FlLED IN TRIAL § couRT § JuDGMENT SIGNED § 04/07/2015 Bv TRIAL coURT JUDGE = CALE-NDARS g sET DATE cALENDAR TYPE REASON sET 03/05/2015 STATus AMENDED BR!EFDuE 08/10/2015 MOTION § MISCE_LLA_NEOUS MOHON 09/02/2015 MOHON : MOHON TO DISMISS PART|ES PARW PARTYTVPE REPRESENTATIVE M'ERRITT, WYNDE APPELLEE DAVID ALLEN MUNSON M.ERRITI`, MICHAEL'RAY ` WAPP-E_L,LEE 3 DA\/;D AAL_L_EN`MUNSO,N SCHIED,.|$AVID w A-PPELLANT 1 DAVID SCHIED SMITH ,.}EANNETTE 11 APPELLEE ROBIN L. APOSTOLAKIS TRIAL COURT lNFORMATlON couRT: PROBATE couRT No 1 couNTY; HARR|S cou'RT J`uDGE: HONORABLE JuDGE PROBATE cT #1 couRT _l_iidedin the Of/l`c`l'al Court Record orta Correct Documenled Inaccuracies, in_the. _T):l`al Corur_'t ‘Docket_ing ’.Reaords; e) Grievant David Schied "s ‘Memorandum of Law ’ in Support ofGrievanl 's Previo_ii.dg Filed ‘Interloc`utorv Appeal’ with Ouestions of Law Perta'inin,¢_r to Whether Judicial ‘Legislation’ is Constitutional; and Whether Judicial Independence Authorizes ‘Bad ’ 2 '.‘.\,!11,_/4 Behavior, and Whether ‘Substantive ’ Evidence Can Be ‘Procedurally ’ Stricken, and Whether §vidence of a ‘§attern and Practice ” ofGo_vernment Coe`rcion Constitutes T reason and/or ‘Domestic Terrorism’; t) All documents and Exhibits referenced by and/or accompanying the above filings captioned as, Grievant’s “Res'gonse in Oggosin'on and Denia.. .”and “Brie in S_u 0`71" ' of Resgonse in OQQosition and Denial to Janette Smith’ s and Robin Apostolakis ’ 'Motion to Dismiss’ Based Upon Criminal Fraud Upon the Lower Court and the Texas Court of Appeals and Refu'sal of Either Court to Prol)erlv Respond to lnterlocu_tl*y and _I'_`inal Judgment Appeals or to Even -Honor Previous Notices and Reauests for Dengnation 0[ Additional Item(s) to be Included in the Ofi"icial Court Record or to Correct Docuqulggl lnaccuracies in the Trial Court ‘Do'cketing»’ Records”. 6. Based upon the Evidence cited in the above submission of docmnents, I believe that l have also been criminally victimized by the named co»conspirators acting under color of law and government f`unctionary position and title to deprive me of my constitutional guarantees and inalienable- rights by way of fraud and a conspiracy to defraud using simulated legal process. l declare under penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true to the best of my knowledge and _ belief. lf` requested, I will swear to the above i_n testimony if requested by a competent court of law and of record. Respectfully submitted, Dated: 12/18/15 (all rights reserved) ACKNOWLEDGEMENT STATE OF MICHIGAN ) COUNTY OF OAKLAND) On this ii 2 day of December, 2015, David Schied appeared to me known or identified to me to be the person descri ed in and swore before me to the truthfulness of the forgoing instrument Ql’a§ _l Boa\ MY COMM!SSION EXPIRES ` NTARY PUBLIC Ng§§§EY ANN Y Pu_Buc 1cnleA N m Nv\S ....¢-"-‘ county OF nAnRis 1 Ray _Ha'rdy, pts'__tnce clerk or Ham`s ma 'rexa§, i:lo hereby ée`rt`lf'y that the foregoing '1`s a `~Q_ true and dorr`e`cf CGPY of the original r'ec_brd, nc_ '" my lawfutcustody and possession as appears cl record m Vol., ~ _, Pag_`e ,Minutes of paid court oh me in my office witness my dffld`al hand and seal of office, this _.3~_’7;£.3)._ RAY HARDY, DISTRlC'l' CLERK Case 2:08-cv-1 0005-PDB-r\..1W Document 13'-11 i'lieo uzi¢. duo CERTIF|CAT|ON _OF CR|M|`NAL H|STORY RECORD INFORMATION STATE OF TEXAS COUNTY OF TRAV|S Pursuant to the authority contained in Rulo902 Sections t end`4 Te;c__as Rules of Evidence. and Subchapt_er _F, gm 411 Texas Government Code i. -`B_i_\erbel Cieveland Section Suporviaor, "Access and Diss`eminaiion Bu_roou, Crime" Service, Texas Department of Public Safety; do hereby certify l am the deputy"'-"";' custodian of the criminhl'hisiory record information of erm_o Records? Service of the Texas Deparnri'ant of PubliccnsbeP/i'iitnher certify thanth is o591d on fglg with the search _ which was §upplied, for tire`fotiowing: /.r” \` _ il `\ rExAs csiuiw\i. H_isrom'r R'E_coR`h ii o `\ ~. i. " in testimony Vwier'e'of l herounto set my hand marin the seal ofthe Te)ps ' ;=-- `. my off inAustin, Toxas on this 1 .; - _,1_§___- gf Feiwua;¥' zqo__a ..,;- Se€ilb'n SUF‘Tviso¢ _ 4 \ Awolib and Qissei'ninaii urea_u ‘ -\____ Crime Record_s_ S,qn¢|co/ Exuir l 7 1108€V1M05-PI|I-RSW oepanmeino¢?ubuésafeiy none 51 l'ng i ul i /é` UNITED STATES DIS-TRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF lVI.ICHIGAN,v SOUTHERN DIVISION ' ' _ NO.- 09-cV-11307 _ David Schied, “pr`o se” H'on. John Corbett O’Meara On behalf of “STUDENT A” ' Plaintg'['-f K v . SCGTT SN'YDER - i'n his:indiv-idual and official capacity; LYNN MOSSOIAN_ - ill her individual and official wpacity; KENNE.TH ROTH ~ ill his individuial and official capacity'; RICHARD FANNING J.R-in his individual and. official capacity HARVALEE SAUNT 0 - in her individual and official capacity; DONNA PARUSZKIEWICZ - in her individual and official capacity; MA-RY E. FAYAD - in her individual and official capa'city;" SU_SAN ,LIEB_ETREU -'in her individual and official capacity; DONAL`D S. YARAB - in his individual and official capacity; CATHERINE D. ANDERLE -_ 'i`n. his individual and official capacity; ARNE DUNCAN - in his official capacify; l Defendanls AFFIDAVIT 'oF EARL HOC-QUARJ) STATE OF MICHIGAN ) SWORN AFFIDAVIT )'SS COUNTY OF LIVINGSTON ) by lEarl Hocquard EARL HOCQUARD_, being first duly sworn, states than I have personal knowledge o'f the facts contained.herein. . If sworn as a witness-, I can te'stify' completely to the facts contained in this Aii'ldavit. . 3. l was born in the United States and, as a person, l have resided here my whole life as a citizen of this country. _ ` 4. I hold a Master of Arts degree .in Couns'eling Psyehology. l am also an ordained no.ndenorn_inational Christian minister. 5. in rn'id-to-`late December 200,8, I's`ent a letter to the Lincoln Consolidated S-cho‘ol 4 District (LCSD) requesting a copy of David Schied’s public personnel file under the Mcimn_e_vm./Lcl. Nv-‘ 6. A few weeks later, m response to my FOIA request, Assistant Supermtendent of Adminisnative Services for the Northville Public Schools sent beck a package addressed to me at my home containing the employment records of Michigan schoolteacher David Schied. a) l have attached a copy of the outer envelope sent via U. S. postal delivery - “Priority Mail"- b;thy the Northville Public Schools m reply to my FOIA request (_E_xln Ai b) The package l received was clearly a response to my FOI_A request. c) I have attached a cover letter, dated January 13, 2009 that was enclosed along with the employment records m that postal package I found the correspondence confusing if not intentionally deceptive 7. There was a two~page cover letter sent in acoompaniment of the one-quarter inch 4(1/4”) chick package of employment documents regarding David Schied (E_x_'_l_n'bit §_)' a) 'Ihe letter was written by DAVID C. BOIJTHO b') lt contained six paragraphs citing at least f_o__ur reasons why my FO_lA request was being “DENIED’=’ by the Northville Public Sehool District. ~ c) The “reasons for denial" included reference to the 13§1 )§'gl and 13§l)§d1'o'f the Freedom of Informarion Act r, and to § §3801.1230, §§§80) 123911_, and §§380) l230g of Michigan s Revised Schoal Codes pertaining co the “exemptz'onj?om disclosure” of criminal history information 8. I inspected the contents of the envelope for the firsc time at my office m Wayne County; and I have maintained all documents in the _envelope, in the order in which `I,had found them packaged together and forwarded to me by the Northvil~le Public School District-admoniscrative o$ces, f . _ 9. l have maintained that package in my own possession and the contents of that envelope have never been left outside-of my own personal possession at my professional comse"ling office lO. Upon inspection of the envelope contmts, l found near the top of the stack of copied_documents a copy of a'Texas ~'cou'rt order written as an “M_Q[ Qx_gg` `nction”. (§xhib'it §) t n a) The court Order, time-starnped“ZGO¢t Sept.Z?’~’ was an S~page document referencing the “cxpunction.” of'c'riminal `history'. ` b) l noted that “l__tel_n_#_l of this court Order specifically states, . .all release dissemination _or" use .ofr"e.cords pertaining to such arrests and prosecution is PROHLBITED’.. c) l timber noted that ‘Itiem #7” of the document additionally held that Mr l l. I have shared the contents of this package with Mr David Schied as his dependent child is my counseling clicrrt; and l am aware that he has named various administrators of the Northville Public Schools as having acted maliciously m the past to obstruct him from employment as s schoolteacher. l am also aware of the negative impact that such action has had upon his ability to support is dependent wife and child, and m impeding his ability to provide for the ongoing costs of the counseling services that this family needs in the aftermath of earlier offenses by the Northville Public Schools’ administration 12 1 am aware that the Northville Public Schools has been engaged in previous civil litigation in which Evidence-has shown that the adiniiii'strators~of this school district are well aware that Mr Schied’s criminal history in Texas_'wa'_s SET ASIDE in 1979, was PARDONED in 1983, and with the remaining arrest record 'EXPUNGED in 2004. 13. By reference to the very State and Federal statutes provided to me by Northville Public Schools’ assistant superintendent David C Bolitho, Ihav.e come to believe that, by my receipt of these documents through the U S Pos_tal Service, I have been inadvertently involved as a witness to a CRIME against Mr David Schied as perpetrated by David Bolitho. 14 I believe that Mr. Schied ma therefore be a crime victim as based u on the a) b) c) Under MCL §15. 243§'1'1 ofMiehigan’ s Freedom of Ig¢ormalio'n Act t(_A_ct 442 of 19_7§), a public body such as a SCHOOL DISTRICT may exempt from disclosure any “(a) information of a personal nature if public disclosure of the information would constitute a clearly unwarranted z'n_~va_sion of on individual ’s privacy ”; and ".(b) 1nvestigatng records compiled for law eojbrce-ment ,‘purp'oses.. insofar-...._.as disclosure as a public record would-.. (izjl Deprive a person of the right to' ojiiir trial or impartial administrative adjudicatioo.. .(_or)-. .(iv) Constitute an unwarranted invasion of personal privacy MCL 380.1231_) MCL 389.123§§a[ and MCL 380.1230§g[ tRevi-sed School Codes)- “The governing body of a public school... or an' employee of a district public school academy.. .SHALL NOT DLS'CLOSE.. .a report (contoining criminal history informali'o`n) .or divulge its contents .-. .to ' 1 ' nt.. ..A representative of the individual’ s employer wlio receives a copy of a report or receives results of a report from another source. .SHd-LL NOT DISCLOSE the report or its contents or- the results ofthe report t`o any person omide ofthe eoiployer"s business or -to any of the employer ’s personnel who are not directly involved° m evaluating the individual’ s qual f canows for employment ojr assignment A person who violates this subsection is 310 000"00 ” ` " MCL 380.1230§1)! (Revised School Codes) - “[Crimz'nal history] injbrmati'on _ .-._s_kall be used by a- school district,. only for the purpose of evaluating an applicants qualifications for employment in rhe;posirionfor which he or she luis applied Exce-pt as otherwise provided b`y law, a board member or employee of a school disoict,' local ac'l lschool dislrz'ct, public school ocademy,. intermediate school district or nonpublic school SH/lLL NOT DISCLUSE the mformorion to any person, other than the applicant who is not directly involved in thel process ofevalualing the applicant’s qualh‘icatz°ons for employment A person who violates this subsection `i.s gung of a misdemeanor pun ishable by a fine of not more than $10`,000. 00. ' d) MCL 722. 62§§[(1\/1ichigan's Child Protecti'on Law)- “‘_F§Qunge’ means to pkysically remove or eliminate and destrg a record or report. e) MCL '780.623 (Michig`an’s Set Aside Law) ~ “. . .a_person,. other than the opplicant~, who knows or should have known that a conviction was set aside @_)a'rdoned or atherwz'se‘ ‘expunged’ ').. .anfd who di\mlges, uses, or publishes infonnation concerning _a conviction set aside under this section is gu w of a misdemeanor punishable by imprisonment for not more than 90 days or a fine ofnot more than 3500. 00, or bot .” f) ________(l>lArfi¢le 60-06' - (Qmeas_dem>£§Lirmn_aU’rmadacas) -4Inf0rmation on an individual that consists of an identifiable description and notation of an arrest, detention, indictment information or other formal criminal usaceh"o_m crzminol justice agencies and maintained zn a central location is not subject to public disclosure... g) Ag`ele 55.'03 (T-ex. Code of Crim. Proc.)-- “Whe.n the order of expunction isfznal: (1)4 the release, dissemination, or use of the wcpunged records.. .is gg_hib_zte_d...’ 5 U. S. C. 552a 1 1» (of the rivagg Act 01 1974)- “Any oj‘icer or employee of an agency, who by virtue ofkis employment or ojj&`cial position has possession of or access to [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/4075046. Public record. Not legal advice.