Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Ernest Bustos, Petitioner v. Encino Park Homeowners Association, et al.
Supreme Court briefOct 30, 2023
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
r -
T
/
V
I
3 @ H ^. 0
■
tv-
Ipiiilaifi Se;li{iti‘i)tafer
V .
•V,
N.O’v
FILED
■
OCf 30 2023
ERNEST. BUSTOS,
Petitioner
/
>
.'*Tr.
y .
* .*
•. “.i. .
! ENGINO PARK HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND SPEGTRM
ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT LP
Respondents
».•
.*•
i
:
U
.
*.
: PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI..
-/ >'• ‘-I-'
*
•
:
i.
:
'
’i
' •
.
•
•
V
■ v. :
!
....
I,.’-
:
t
-
'•!
■■
•:
V^f
In ttje Supreme Court ot tjje liiiteti g>tate$
NO
ERNEST BUSTOS,
Petitioner
v.
ENCINO PARK HOME OWNERS ASSOCIATION AND SPECTRM
ASSOCIATION MANAGEMENT LP
Respondents
On Petition for Writ of Certiorari to
The Court Of Appeals Texas San Antonio
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Ernest Bustos
Petitioner
In Propria Persona
2163 Encino Loop
San Antonio, Texas 78259
(210) 313-3787
erblassoc2@aol.com
I
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
Whether the Court violated Petitioner’s protected rights preventing the
appeal to move forward failing to compare and evaluate the conduct of the
Respondent’s false representations ignoring that Respondents’ complaint
was frivolous show the custodian of record affidavit was fraudulent.
\
Whether the Court showed bias when dealing with pro se litigant ignoring
well establish Supreme Court case law dealing with Pro se litigants
violating his constitutional rights under the 14th Amendment Access to
courts and Equal Protection Clause and Fifth Amendment Due Process of
Law.
/
n
IDENTYITY OF PARTIES
Petitioner: Ernest Bustos Pro se
Petitioner:
Ernest Bustos
2163 Encino Loop
San Antonio, Texas 78259
Telephone: (210) 313-3787
erblassoc2@aol.com
Respondent: Encino Park Homeowners Association
Respondent’s Appellate Counsel:
Appellate Counsel:
Kyle D. Giacco; SBN: 07839150
Email: kgiacco@dawray.com
Willie Ben Daw, III
wbdaw@dawrav.com
Suleha F. Shaikh; SBN: 24098411
Email: sshaikh@dawray.com
5718 Westheimer, Suite 1400
Houston, Texas 77057
(713) 226-3121 Telephone
(713) 266-3188
Respondent’s Trial Counsel:
Elliott S. Cappuccio
2161 NW Military Highway, Suite 400
San Antonio, TX 78213.
ecappuccio@pulmanlaw.com
m
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
QUESTIONS PRESENTED
n
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
m
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
1
OPINIONS BELOW
1
JURISDICTION
1
CONSTITUTIONAL AND STATUTORY PROVISIONS
1
STATEMENT OF THE CASE.
2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11
11,12
CONCLUSION
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE WRIT
11
APPENDIX:
Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio Opinion 04-21-00009-CV
App. A
Court cf Appeals Texas San Antonio Opinion 04-19-00311-CV
App. B
Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio Order denying rehearing
App. C
Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio Order denying en banc
Reconsideration...............................................................................
App. D
Texas Supreme Court Petition for Review Denied
App. E
Texas Supreme Court Motion for Rehearing Denied
App. F
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U S. 97, 105 (1934)
McNeil v United States, 508 US. 106
1
1,2
IV
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 SW 2d 19- Tex: Supreme Court 1998
3
Commissioners Court v. Agan, 940 S.W.2d 77, 81 (Tex.1997)
3
Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water Conservation Dist., 925
3
S.W.2d 618, 637-638 (Tex. 1996)
Texas Educ. Agency v. Leeper; 893 S.W.2d 432, 444-446 (Tex. 1994)
3
EdgewoodIndep. Sch. Dist. v. Kirby, 111 S.W.2d 391, 398-399 (Tex.1989).... 3
Duncan v. Pogue, 759 S.W.2d 435, 435-436 (Tex. 1988)
3
Oake v. Collin County, 692 S.W.2d 454, 455-456 (Tex. 1985)
3
Trevino v. American Nat'l Ins. Co., 140 Tex. 500, 168 S.W.2d 656, 606
(1943)............................................................................... ...................................
3
Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Aiello, 941 S.W.2d 68, 73 (Tex.1997)
3
Snoke v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co., 770 S.W.2d 777, 778 (Tex. 1989)
3
(per curiam)
Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co. v. Britton, 406 S.W.2d 901, 907 (Tex. 1966)
3
GulfPaving Co. v. Lofstedt, 144 Tex. 17, 188 S.W.2d 155, 160-161 (1945)
3
Johnson v. Universal Life & Accident Ins. Co., 127 Tex. 435, 94 S.W.2d 1145,
3
1146 (1936)
General Motors Corp. v. Bloyed, 916 S.W.2d 949, 961 (Tex.1996)
3
Arthur Andersen, 945 S.W.2d at 818
3
Knebelv. Capital Nat'l Bank, 518 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Tex. 1974)
3
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126
3
(1939)
Murff v. Murff, 6l5 S.W.2d 696, 699-700 (Tex.l981);Car7e v. Carle, 149 Tex.
3
469, 234 S.W.2d 1002, 1005 (1950)
v.
Carle v. Carle, 149 Tex. 469, 234 S.W.2d 1002, 1005 (1950)
3
Goode v. Shoukfeh, 943 S.W.2d 441, 446 (Tex. 1997),
4
Beaumont Bank v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex.1991)
4
Platsky v. CIA, 953 F. 2d, 26, 28 (1991)
Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)
5,8,10,12
9,10,11
ITL Int% Inc. v. Cafe Soluble, S.A., 464 F. App’x 241, 244 (5th Cir. 2012)
8,9
(unpub.)
WILLIAM MCNEIL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES 113 S. Ct. 1980, 124 L.
8
Ed. 2d 21, 61 U.S.L.W. 4468
Am. Realty Tr., Inc. v. Hamilton Lane Advisors, Inc., 115 F. App’x 662, 667
9
(5th Cir. 2004) (unpub.))
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520, 92 S.Ct. 594, 595, 30
L.Ed.2d 652 (1972).....................................................................
9,10
Conleyv. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957)
9
Dioguardiv. Burning, 139 F. 2d 774 (CA2 1944)
9
Codes
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Sec 9.001.(3)(A)
2
Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Sec Code 9.012. (e)(1)
2
Statues and regulation:
1
28 U.S.C. 1254(1)
Other Authorities:
Supreme Court Rule 13.5, 22, 30.2
Fourteenth Amendment rights Equal Protection Clause
vi.
1
1,9,10
Fifth Amendment rights Due Process
Texas Rule 1.04 of Texas Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct
r
Vll
1,9,10
2,3
1
PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI
Ernest Bustos (Bustos) respectfully petitions for a writ of certiorari to review the
Opinion of Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio.
OPINION BELOW
The Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio Affirmed the trial courts orders garneting the
No Evidence Summary Judgement to Encino Park Homeowners Association
Petitioner’s appeal No. 04-21-00009
JURISDICTION
The Mandate Opinion of the court of appeals was entered on September 28, 2022.
Petition for rehearing was denied on October 17th, 2022. Motion for en banc
reconsideration was denied on November 02, 2022. Supreme Court of Texas Petition
for Review 22-111 denied March 24, 2023 Motion for Rehearing dined June 02, 2023.
The jurisdiction of this court is invoked under 28 U.S.C. 1254(1)
This Petition is timely under the Supreme Court Rule 13.5, 22 and 30.2 filed within
60-days of extension of time to file a petition for writ of certiorari.
CONSTITUTIONAL VIOLATIONS
Fourteenth Amendment, right to access to courts, Equal Protection Clause, Fifth
Amendment Due Process Pro se litigant’s right to fair hearings and impartial tribunal,
at a basic level, procedural due process is essentially based on the concept of
"fundamental fairness." Snyder v. Massachusetts, 291 U.S. 97. 105 (1934) As
construed by the courts, it includes panel making the final decision over the
proceedings be impartial in regards to the matter before them. McNeil v United
2
States, 508 US. 106: Moreover, given the clarity of the statutory text, it is certainly
not a "trap for the unwary."
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
I
WHETHER THE COURT VIOLATED PETITIONER’S PORTECTED RIGHTS
The Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio failure to fairly review the record
compromised the court’s impartiality, if had fairly reviewed the Petitioners motions,
the merits and the facts in the complaint it would have found that the Petitioner
exposed the Respondents’ complaint as meritless and frivolous under Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Sec. 9.001.(3)(A) and that it should have been stricken under Tex. Civ.
Prac. & Rem. Code Sec. 9.012. (e)(1) The striking of the pleading. This case is not a
dispute over payments, the Court’s Opinions relied on the Respondents false
representations, further the Court contorted the facts to fit its Opinion.
Further Judge Salinas April 11th 2019 Order vacated the February 12th 2019 No
Evidence Summary judgment finding genuine issues of material of fact, however her
order was contingent on $2,500 fees to the Respondent’s attorney requested for
responding to the motion to vacate. Petitioner filed a motion to vacate challenging
Judge Salinas’ Order for attorney fees as arbitrary and capricious. Instead of striking
of the pleading on her own motion after Petitioner showed the Affidavit was
fraudulent, exposing cause of action as meritless and feverous, further attorneys made
fraudulent statements concerning returned mail both verbally and in the response to
Petitioner’s motion to vacate violating standards prescribed in Rule 1.04 of Texas
3
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct instead Judge Salinas awarded attorney
fees to the Respondent’s attorney which was clearly arbitrary and capricious outside of
the limitations on the court’s discretion.
Bocquet v. Herring, 972 SW 2d 19- Tex: Supreme Court 1998
The Declaratory Judgments Act does not require an award of attorney fees to
the prevailing party. Rather, it provides that the court “may” award attorney
fees. The Statue thus affords the trial court a measure of discretion in deciding
whether to award attorney fees or not. Commissioners Court v. Agan, 940
S.W.2d 77, 81 (Tex. 1997); Barshop v. Medina County Underground Water
Conservation Dist., 925 S.W.2d 618, 637-638 (Tex. 1996); Texas Educ. Agency v.
Leeper, 893 S.W.2d 432, 444-446 (Tex. 1994); Edgewood Indep. Sch. Dist. v.
Kirby 111 S.W.2d 391, 398-399 (Tex. 1989) Duncan v. Pogue, 759 S.W.2d 435,
435-436 (Tex. 1988); Oake v. Collin County, 692 S.W.2d 454, 455-456 (Tex.
1985).
The Act imposes four limitations on the court's discretion. The first is that fees
must be reasonable. In general, "[t]he reasonableness of attorney's fees, the
recovery of which is authorized by ... statute, is a question of fact for the jury's
determination." Trevino v. American Natl Ins. Co., 140 Tex. 500, 168 S.W.2d
656, 660 (1943). Accord: Stewart Title Guar. Co. v. Aiello, 941 S.W.2d 68, 73
(Tex.1997); Snoke v. Republic Underwriters Ins. Co., 770 S.W.2d 777, 778 (Tex.
1989) (per curiam); Great Am. Reserve Ins. Co. v. Britton, 406 S.W.2d 901, 907
(Tex. 1966); Gulf Paving Co. v. Lofstedt, 144 Tex. 17, 188 S.W.2d 155, 160-161
(1945); Johnson v. Universal Life & Accident Ins. Co., 127 Tex. 435, 94 S.W.2d
1145, 1146 (1936). The second limitation, that fees must be necessary, is
likewise a fact question. General Motors Corp. v. Bloyed, 916 S.W.2d 949, 961
(Tex. 1996). There are, of course, factors prescribed by law which guide the
determination of whether attorney fees are reasonable and necessary. Arthur
Andersen, 945 S.W.2d at 818 (quoting Tex. Disciplinary R. Prof. Conduct 1.04,
reprinted in Tex. Gov't Code., tit. 2, subtit. G app. (STATE BAR RULES, art. X,
§9)).
The Act's other two limitations on attorney fees awards are that they must be
equitable and just. Matters of equity are addressed to the trial court's
discretion. Knebel v. Capital Natl Bank, 518 S.W.2d 795, 799 (Tex. 1974);
Craddock v. Sunshine Bus Lines, Inc., 134 Tex. 388, 133 S.W.2d 124, 126 (1939).
So is the responsibility for just decisions. Murff v. Murff, 615 S.W.2d 696, 699700 (Tex. 1981); Carle v. Carle, 149 Tex. 469, 234 S.W.2d 1002, 1005 (1950).
In sum, then, the Declaratory Judgments Act entrusts attorney fee awards to
the trial court's sound discretion, subject to the requirements that any fees
awarded be reasonable and necessary, which are matters of fact, and to the
4
additional requirements that fees be equitable and just, which are matters of
law. It is an abuse of discretion for a trial court to rule arbitrarily,
unreasonably, or without regard to guiding legal principles, e.g., Goode v.
Shoukfeh, 943 S.W.2d 441, 446 (Tex.1997), or to rule without supporting
evidence, Beaumont Bank v. Buller, 806 S.W.2d 223, 226 (Tex. 1991). Therefore,
in reviewing an attorney fee award under the Act, the court of appeals must
determine whether the trial court abused its discretion by awarding fees when
there was insufficient evidence that the fees were reasonable and necessary, or
when the award was inequitable or unjust. Unreasonable fees cannot be
awarded, even if the court believed them just, but the court may conclude that it
is not equitable or just to award even reasonable and necessary fees. This multi
faceted review involving both evidentiary and discretionary matters is required
by the language of the Act.
The Petitioner filed his second appeal requesting the Appellate Court to exercise its
discretion to review the merits and the facts to allow the appeal to move forward
explaining that he did not receive notice of Judge Noll’s order because of confusion
when he did he was very ill could not have done anything because he was bed ridden.
Further, Petitioner was unaware of the Texas Supreme Court standing co-vid order
because the court did not send notice of the standing order to extending time. The
Petitioner filed his appeal without a notice of appeal believing that time had passed to
file a notice of appeal. The court’s Conclusion states it refused exercise discretion
because the Petitioner notice of appeal was late even though he had not filed a notice.
The court contorted his request for the court to exercise its discretion as notice.
However, the Petitioner asked the court to exercise its discretion to review the merits,
the facts and the attorney’s fraudulent acts to allow the appeal to proceed. The court
went on to state that the Petitioner failed to use any of the means available to him to
5
make his notice of appeal timely, stating “we will not exercise our discretion to do so”1
even challenging his illness stating he did not disclose the cause of his illness in
violation of HIPAA. The Petitioner called the court to ask about time to file a Motion
For Rehearing en banc the clerk placed him on hold, when the clerk returned the clerk
told him that the Judge stated “don’t bother” showing disdain. The Court Opinions
showed the appearance of favoritism and impartiality.
The Appellate Court failed to take into consideration the full record when it refused to
exercise its discretion to allow both appeals to proceed instead it dismissed the
Petitioner’s appeal allowing the vacated summary judgment to stand. All the lower
courts accepted the unethical veracity of pleadings allowing the complaint to proceed
ignoring the Respondents’ Attorneys false representations, their false statements
without addressing them when court should have issued sanctions. Without moving
for a criminal complaint for perjury on its own motion, instead the lower courts
allowed Spectrum Association Management LP custodian of record perjured affidavit
as support to the complaint as true.2 The Appellate court ignored the unethical
veracity of pleadings and the custodian of record perjured affidavit. Instead the
Appellate Court repeated the Respondents’ false representations using them as the
basis in both of its Opinions. The Appellate Court ignored the Salinas courts order
1 Platsky v. CIA, 953 F. 2d, 26, 28 (1991). , "Court errs ifcourt dismisses pro se litigant without
instructions ofhow pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. " “If the Court feels the
document was not properly titled or formatted then it has the duty to assist pro se litigants in modifying
their pleadings to enable them to go forward” between litigants. They should not raise barriers which
prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its
effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end ofa justjudgment."
2 (CR 223 13 line 2) custodian of record Jennifer Nutt (Defendant has failed and continues to fail to pay
these assessments, which are just, due and owning.)
6
vacating the summary judgment after Petitioner showed genuine issues of material of
fact, instead the court’s opinion simply states the lower court granted the
Respondent’s motion for summary judgement purposely avoiding the Petitioner’s
allegations. The Petitioner filed a motion to vacate Judge Salinas order on April 18th,
2019 before the 10 day deadline of the court’s order awarding attorney’s fees. The
Motion for New Trial and Motion to Vacate Motions where heard on May 13th 2019
before The Honorable Angelica Jimenez, in the 408th Judicial District Court. Judge
Jimenez ruled the court no longer had plenary power denying the motion to vacate the
order dated April 11th, 2019 after the Respondents attorney misled the court on the
date of the Summary Judgment as February 27th 2019.
The Salinas court reviewed cancelled checks instructing how to apply the payments
and a letter instructing how to apply the payments, however the custodians of record
affidavit stated that the Petitioner refused to pay HQA assessments and a letter sent
to Respondent’s offering to settle before the suit was filed. The court question why
pa3unents were not applied as directed but did not question the custodians of record
affidavit. Further the Respondent’s response to the Petitioner’s motion to vacate made
fraudulent statements about the return of the certified mail sent to the Petitioner
stating it had been returned to the attorney it making the point that “was not
underived it was refused”.
The Petitioner’s motion to vacate no evidence summary judgement was victorious;
contesting the court’s order for attorney’s fees didn’t change the evidence the court
7
accepted as genuine issues of material of fact to vacate the February 12th 2019 no
evidence summary judgment.
The Fourth Court’s Opinions’ No. 04-21-00009-CV and 04-19-00311-CV relied on the
attorney’s fraudulent representations that the certified mail was returned when the
record clearly showed it wasn’t, the record also shows the February 12th 2019
Summary Judgement vacated. Further, the Respondent’s attorney wrote in the reply
to Petitioner’s motion to vacate that the certified mail was not underived it was
refused which was exposed as a fraudulent when Judge Salinas asked for proof the
attorney admitted it had not been returned3 yet the foundation of both of the Fourth
Court of Appeal Memorandum Opinion state that the summary judgement was issued
and the certified mail was returned and a no evidence summary judgement had been
issued to the Respondents advancing the Respondent’s fraudulent representation
which was repeated by the Respondent’s attorneys in every lower court. The court of
appeals dismissed the first appeal For Want of Jurisdiction because the Petitioner’s
counterclaim had not been dismissed. The Respondent filed a second fraudulent
motion for no evidence summary. Respondent’s attorneys represented to Judge Noll’s
court that a summary had already been issued leading the Noll court refused the same
information Judge Salinas reviewed to vacate the No Evidence Summary Judgment
3
(CR 147 ^17 line 3) “The certified mail was returned to Plaintiff’s attorneys' office and was
marked “unclaimed. ” Importantly, it was not marked “undeliverable. ” “Rather, in case the
Defendant simply chose not to claim the certified mail. ” RR Volume 2 Page 11 line 22 to line 25)
Mr. Kraus: The actual, I understand the actual document has not been returned to our office yet.
(RR Volume 2 Page 11 line 24 to Page 12 - - Page 13 line 1 to 3) Mr. Bustos: There is something
in here that I just read that said that it had been returned to the attorney. And 1 asked him for the
return and he said he didn 7 have it. Now, he admitted that it’s not been returned.
8
which was a part of the record introduced by the Respondents in their pleading calling
I
the evidence a bunch of papers on the grounds that the Petitioner did not include an
affidavit attesting to the evidence, ignoring the Respondents’ perjured affidavit. The
Petitioner argued that the evidence presented was on the record and was the same
evidence presented to vacate the Respondents no evidence summary judgement Judge
Noll court refused to allow the Petitioner to attest to the evidence or allow him to
repair his challenge to Respondents motion4 for No Evidence Summary Judgment;
instead the court granted the Respondents motion for no evidence summary without
prejudice. If the 4th court of appeals would have reviewed the record fully and fairly it
would found the court error and that the Noll court’s Order dismissing the Petitioner’s
counterclaim without prejudice was invalid because the court did not adjudicated on
the Petitioner’s counterclaim on the merits and the facts failing to follow WILLIAM
MCNEIL, PETITIONER v. UNITED STATES 113 S. Ct. 1980, 124 L. Ed. 2d 21, 61
U.S.L.W. 4468. Moreover, given the clarity of the statutory text, it is certainly not a
"trap for the unwary." Further noting in the Court’s Opinion addresses the fraudulent
affidavit of support or fraudulent representations. Fourth Court of Appeals states that
Petitioner admitted that he not paid the attorney fees but doesn’t address why.
Petitioner's, refusal to pay $2500 attorney's fee, the Appellate court ignores the
Petitioner’s Motion to Vacate the Court’s Order. Petitioner’s refusal to pay fees does
4 Platsky: v. CIA, 953 F. 2d, 26, 28 (1991); , "Court errs ifcourt dismisses pro se litigant without
instructions ofhow pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. " “If the Court feels the
document was not properly titled or formatted then it has the duty to assist pro se litigants in modifying
their pleadings to enable them to go forward” between litigants. They should not raise barriers which
prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its
effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end ofa justjudgment."
9
not change Judge Salinas’ finding of issues of material of fact vacating the February
12th 2019 summary judgment. The court violated his protected rights.
Fairness is a basic principle of due process, the complaint lacked substantial ground in
fact making the court’s order for attorney fees arbitrary and capricious. The courts
:
failed to adhere to well established Supreme Court decisions dealing with Pro se
litigants5 violating the Equal Protection Clause XIV protecting Petitioner from
unreasonable Restraint of access to the courts violating Due Process “No person shall
be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.” See ITL Int’l, Inc.
v. Cafe Soluble, S.A., 464 F. App’x 241, 244 (5th Cir. 2012) (unpub.) Am. Realty Tr.,
Inc. v. Hamilton Lane Advisors, Inc., 115 F. App’x 662, 667 (5th Cir. 2004) (unpub.)).
The San Antonio Fourth Court of Appeals refusal to exercise its discretion to allow the
appeal to proceed stating the Petitioner failed to use any means available to him to
make a timely notice of appeal, even though the court’s opinion admits that the Texas
Supreme court had issued a stay due to co-vid, the court should not have been
surprised that the Petitioner was unware of the stay. The San Antonio Fourth Court of
Appeals failed to review of the merits and the facts raised by the Petitioner failing to
exercise its discretion refusing to allow the Petitioners appeal move forward due to a
late notice of appeal violating his constitutional rights and well found controlling
Supreme Court decisions when dealing with a Pro se litigant.6,? Simply stated the San
5 Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938) “Pleadings are intended to serve as a means
of arriving at fair and just settlements of controversies between litigants. They should not raise
barriers which prevent the achievement of that end”.
6 Haines v. Kerner. 404 U.S. 519. 520. 92 S.Ct. 594. 595. 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). We cannot say
with assurance that under the allegations of the pro se complaint, which we hold to less stringent
10
Antonio Fourth Court of Appeals violated the Petitioners Fourteenth Amendment,
right to access to courts, Equal Protection Clause, Fifth Amendment Due Process Pro
se litigant’s right to fair hearings and impartial tribunal.
II
WHETHER JUDGES ARE BIAS WHEN DEALING WITH PRO SE LITIGANTS
Conflicts arise when Pro se bring their complaints to court due to conflicting duties
when there is an issue in pro se cases they should be decided on the merits and facts
following Supreme Court decisions on pro se not on procedural error. The Judge
should look at the merits and facts in the complaint as a means to arriving at a fair
and just outcome to controversies not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of
that end.8
The San Antonio Fourth Court and the lower courts in involved in the Petitioner’s
hearings showed their bias and impartially dealing with a pro se litigant in direct
contradiction to well established and controlling Supreme Court’s decisions. The
constitution requires our justice system to serve as a means of arriving at fair and just
settlements of controversies between litigants, however when one of the litigants is pro
standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, it appears S 2 I f 52] "beyond doubt that the
plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to
relief." Conley v. Gibson, 355 U. S. 41, 45-46 (1957). See Dioguardi v. Durnins, 139 F. 2d 774
(CA2 1944)
7 Maty v. Grasselli.Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)
'
"Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair andjust settlements of controversies
between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end".
8 Platsky v. CIA, 953 F. 2d, 26, 28 (1991). , "Court errs ifcourt dismisses pro se litigant without
instructions ofhow pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings. " “If the Court feels the
document was not properly titled or formatted then it has the duty to assist pro se litigants in modifying
their pleadings to enable them to go forward” between litigants. They should not raise barriers which
prevent the achievement ofthat end. Proper pleading is important, but its importance consists in its
effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of ajustjudgment."
11
se the court is required by this Court’s decisions to assist pro se litigants to enable
them to go forward.
The Court should not raise barriers which prevent the
achievement of that end the importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to
accomplish the end of a just judgment. This means that the courts must offer a level
playing field with basic principles of fairness which in this case it is clear that the
lower court failed to do so.9 The Petitioner, found information on the internet that
Judges refuse to follow Supreme Court decisions which are the laws of the land in
favor of attorneys calling the Supreme Court decisions unfair to attorneys. Judges who
refuse to recognize Supreme Court decisions instead substitute the decisions with
their own desecration not to follow this court’s decisions should be removed.
A Judge isn’t bestowed with desecration to ignore the law of the land.
REASONS FOR GRANTING THE PETITION
Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio failure to exercise its Desecration failing to
evaluate the merits and the facts instead the Court’s Opinion only focuses on a late
notice of appeal that he did not file. Opinion violates the Pro se Petitioners Fourteenth
Amendment rights to equal protection of the law, right to access the courts and due
process of law. The Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio errored when it failed to
review merits and fact that exposed the Respondent’s fraudulent representations to
the court resulted in an unjust outcome and violation of the Respondent’s right to fair
hearings and impartial tribunal, a basic level, procedural due process is essentially
9 Maty v. Grasselli Chemical Co., 303 U.S. 197 (1938)
“Pleadings are intended to serve as a means of arriving at fair andjust settlements of controversies
between litigants. They should not raise barriers which prevent the achievement of that end”.
12
based on the concept of fundamental fairness. Every great society has failed when
those in power abuse those who they have power over are witnessing that today.
Allowing the Judges to continue to ignore Pro se litigant rights to fair hearings and
impartial tribunal is unconscionable and must end.
Simply stated; This Court that can change the Judge’s failure to follow well establish
case law by enforcing its decisions because so many judges have failed to do so and
some showing bias as is the case here.10
CONCLUSION
For the forgoing reasons, Petitioner request the United States Supreme Court grant
the review of Court of Appeals Texas San Antonio asking for the Petition for Writ of
Certiorari to be granted.
Respectfully submitted,
Ernest Bustos Petitioner
In Propria Persona
October 30, 2023
'° Platsky v. CIA, 953 F. 2d, 26, 28 (1991). , "Court errs if court dismisses pro se litigant without
instructions of how pleadings are deficient and how to repair pleadings." "If the Court feels the
document was not properly titled or formatted then it has the duty to assist pro se litigants in
modifying their pleadings to enable them to go forward” between litigants. They should not raise
barriers which prevent the achievement of that end. Proper pleading is important, but its
importance consists in its effectiveness as a means to accomplish the end of a just judgment"
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.