1 Al though K i m mel l cl ai m s J oh n son f ai l ed to m ake th e a n ti -bri b er y sta tem en t, the docu

men ts f rom the Secretary of State att ached to K i m mel l ’s pleadi ng sh ow that the Se cre

tary f oun d f i l i ng s of t he required statem

ent for Wi

ll ia m J ohnson as mun ic ipa l j udge on Oct o be

r 25 , 19 94;W i l l i am

Joe Joh ns on as m unici pal judge on Jan uary 25, 1 996 ; a

nd W i l l i am Joh ns on a s j us ti ceof

the pe ac e on Octobe r 25, 19 94. K

i m mel l ’sclai m may be ba sed on the f i l i ngs not usi ng th e m i ddle nam e “ Joel .” 

### TEXA S COU RT O F AP PEAL S, THIR D DISTRIC T, AT AU STIN

NO. 03-01-00333-CV
Paul West Kimm ell

, Appellant
v. Ina Cooper, Tamm

y L. Smith, William Joel Johnson, Ten John Does and Ten Jane Does, Appelle es
FROM THE DISTRICT CO URT OF BURNET COUNTY, 33RD JUDICI AL DISTRICT NO. 20,509 H ONORABLE GUILFORD L. JONES , III, JUDGE PRESIDING
Paul West Ki mm el l h as f il ed a brief that is part origi

nal quo war ra nt o p ro cee ding and part ap pe al. We dis miss t he o r ig inal pro cee ding po rt ion bec aus e it ha s no t been p re sent ed by t he pr oper p ar

ty to a tr i al cou rt. W e a f f i rm th e j udgm

en t of th e tr i al cou rt. In hi s origi nal pl eadi n g i n th e d i str i ct c our t, Kimmell c o mpla ine d t ha t va r io us o fficia ls in the Ci ty of Burn et and Burnet County f

ai le d to ma

ke an an t i-b r ibe ry st at eme nt be fo r e a ct ing in t he ir off i ci al capa ci tie s. SeeTex. Const. art. 16, § 1. The offi ci al s and thei

r offi ces are In a Cooper, ci

ty alder wo man; Ta mmy

Smith, clerk of t he municipal co ur t ; and William Joel Jo hnso n, u ns p eci fi ed
cou n ty off ic e. 1 T he t we nt y Do es we r e n ev er na med
. Kimmell apparently fi le d this sui t t o challe nge2

his convi ction i n m un ic ipa l c o ur t fo ra s pe ed ing vio lat io n. A c o py o f a c o mpla int at t ac he d t o his ple adi ng al le ges that he was travel

in g forty-ni ne m il es per hour

in a thir t y-fivemi

le s per hour zone; t he fi ne an d court co sts assesse d on Novem ber 28, 2000 tot al ed $123.25. Ki mm el l outli ned two
causesof action i

n hi s i ni tial ple adi ng i n the di strict court : (1) that t he three off ic ia ls in fl icted me ntal anguish and f raud by prosecuting h

im bef ore maki ng requi redan ti-b ri bery statements wi

th the Texas Secre tary of S t at e; and (2) tha

t Coop er, Sm

i th, an d J ohn son f ai l ed to prov e the e xi stenc e of
co rp or at ions kno wn as t he St at e o f Texa s and t he Ci ty of Bu rnet. Ki mm el l a pparently bel ie ves that t he full capit alizat ion o f the nam es “THE STATE OF TEXAS” an d “THE CITY OF BURNET” gi ves them a separate corpo rate exis tence f rom “the State of Texas” and “ the Ci ty of Burn

et.” He later requestedre lief against t he appell ees’ att orney for “trespass by m isappropriation of nam

e,” an offense pu r po r t ed ly co mmi t t ed by ca pit alizing

all the let t er s in Kim

mell’s name in the s t yle of t he appell ees’ plea t o t he jur isdict ion.

In t he ir p lea t o t he jur isd ict io n, t he ap pe llee s a r gu ed t ha t Kimmell’ s s uit was an impe r miss ible col

l ate ral atta ck on his sp eedi ng c onv i cti on. They

al so con tended th at the d

i stri ct court la cked juri sdiction b ecause Ki

mm el l wa s sui

ng appel le es f or o ff ic ia l actions f or which they retained sovereign i m m uni ty. SeeTex . Ci

v. Pra c. & Rem. Code A

nn . §§ 101 .021-.0 22 (W

est 199 7). Fin ally, t he appe l l ee s c on

ten de d th at th e ch al l en ge s to th ei

r ri gh t to hold public o ffi

ce w er e pr op er ly the subj ect of a qu o w ar ra nt o a ct ion and t hat Kimm ell lacked st anding t o br ing suc h an ac t ion. See id. § 66.002 ( West 1997) ( quo war ranto action must be br ough t i n n am e of State of Texas). The di strict
co ur t gr ant ed t he plea t o t he jur isdict ion.

On appeal , Ki

mm el l c ontended that distri ct court personnel had not pr op er ly given the
an ti-b ri bery st at ement s. We fou nd t hese challenge s t o be in the nature of a quo warranto act ion that2 Ap pe llee s mo ve t o dis miss Kimmell’ s a pp ea l, contendi ng that he f

il ed hi s notice of

appeal t o o lat e. T he dis t r ict co ur t dis miss ed his s uit on May 2, 2001. Kim

me ll fi le d a m ot ion to set aside t he jud gmen t onJune 4, 200 1, mor e t han t hirt y days aft er t he dismissal—t oo late t o e xt end t he appella te timetab le s. The di strict court recei ved hi s n oti ceof ap pe al on June 13, 2001—m

ore t han th i rty da y s af te r the judg ment, but wit hin fi fte en da ys of t he da t e du e; it t her efo re was a de fect ive m oti on t o e xt end the ti

me to fi l e the noti ce of appe al
. See Verburgt v

. Dorner , 959 S.W.2d 615, 617 (T ex. 199 7) . As we d id no t re que st t hat he correc t thi s def ec t, we wi l l ac ce pt K i m mel l ’s noti ceof appeal as ti mel y an d add re ss th e m eri ts of his ap pea l. We overrule the appellees’ motion to dism iss.
3 Wh en Kimmell r es t at es E r r o r#2 lat er in his bri ef, h

e states it as “F ai lure to mai ntain /enf orce State La w, Texas C onsti

tution , Arti

cle 5, Se cti on 8.”

3 Kimm ell lacked st anding t o br ing individually and t hat was impro per ly brou ght fo rt he firs t t ime in
an ap pe llat e c o ur t . Dis miss ing su ch cla ims, we r eq ue st ed br iefin g fr o m Kimmell o n a ny is sues pr o pe r ly t he su bject of a n app eal fro m the district cou rt ’s gr ant ing o f the plea t o t he jur isdict ion. 2 In hi s bri ef , Ki m mell assi gns the f oll owin g errors: Erro r #1. Fai

lure of Due Process Notice of Heari ng. Erro r #2. Fai

lure to mai

ntain and en force State Law. 3 Error #3. Failure t o maint ain jurisdict ion and re nder Findings o f Fact and Con cl us i on of Law voidi

ng “i ll egal acts” of Publi

c Off ici als. Erro r #4. Fa

i l ur e of th e b el ow c our t to pr otect A pp el l an t’s Se cu ri ty A gr eemen

t. Kimmell appe ar s to ar gue unde r E rr or #1 t hat he was deprived of due process because he did no t get not ice o f the hear ing at which t he appel le es’ pl ea to t he j urisdi

ction was s

ustain ed. T his argu ment fai

ls because the distr ict co urt ’s order states that t he court considered the pl ea “wi thout oral

h ea ri n g.” A n oral h ea ri n g w oul d n ot h av e a l tered th e f ac t th at Ki

mm el l s ued a
mun ic ipa l court cl erk, either a m

unici pal cou rt j udge or a j us ti ce of th e p eace , a

n d a ci ty al derwoman f ort heir ac t ions in

pr os ecu t ing him on a sp eed ing t icket (t hou gh wha t ro le an alde rw oman c ou ld have had i n pr osecu tin g a speed i ng ti cket wa s nev er al

l eged ), did no t allege t hey did anyt hingou t side t he4 This s ection pro vides:

Dis trict Courtjurisd ictio n co nsist s o f exclusive, app ellate , a nd origi na l j urisd i cti on of all a ct io ns, pr o ce ed ing s, an d r eme die s, exce pt in ca ses wh ere excl usi ve, appella te, o r origi

nal jurisdi ction m

ay be conf erred by this Constitution or ot her la w o n so me other cour

t, trib una l , or adm i nistrati ve body. Di stri ct Court

judge s shall have t he po wer t o iss ue w rit s nec essa ry t o e nfor ce t heir jur isdict ion. The Dis trict Court shal

l h ave appel la te juri sdi ct ion a

nd ge ne ral su pe rvi sor y con trol over th e C ou nty C omm

is si oners Court, with s

uch ex ceptions an

d under such regulations as m

ay be prescri

bed b y l aw. Tex. Const. art. 5, § 8. 4 scope of their off

ici al duties, and di

d not al l ege th at they had wai ve d the i r off i ci al i m m uni ty. To t he extent that he chall

enges t he merits of the dist rict co urt ’s ruli ng, he als o fail

s. He does not address t he dist rict co ur t ’s finding that his sui t is an i m prop er a ttem pt to col l ate ral l y atta ck a f i na l con vi cti on f orsp ee di ng . He do es no t ad dr es s t he di st r ict co ur t ’s find ing t ha t he , ind ivid ua lly, i s n ot en ti tl ed to bring a q uo w ar ra n to act ion. Bec aus e t he ple a to t he j urisdi ction ha d me rit, the grantin

g of the plea did not deprive hi

m of due process. Under E r r o r#2 , Kimmell contends that the district court fai le d to ma in tain or enf orce ar t icle f i ve , se cti on e i gh t of t he Texas constitut ion, which defi nes the juri sdiction of di strict co urt s. 4 Kimmell c o nt en ds un de rt his point t hat t he district c our t’s noti ce of setti ng f ail ed b eca use the c l erk
wa s n ot properly

sworn. The chal

le ngeto the authority of

the cl erk to fi

le the order is y

et another im proper at tempt at a quo warr anto pro ceedi ng. Under Error #3, K i m mel l con tends t hat he can

bri ng these ch

al le nges ab sent a quo wa rra nto proce edi

ng by the State be ca us e the c ons

ti tution provi de s th

at “ every thi ng i n th i s ‘ Bi l l of Righ ts’ i s e xc ep ted

out of the ge ne ral pow ers of governm ent, and sh

al l f oreverre main invi

olat e, and all laws c ont ra ry t her et o, or t o t he follow ing pr ovisio ns, s hall be void. ” We co nc lud e t ha t Kimmell5

hasnot sho wn a c onflict bet wee n t he T exas Bill of Right s and any sta tute th at is releva nt t o t he dis putes in volv ed i n hi s case. Under Error #4, K

i m mel l conten ds that the c ourt be lo w fa iled t o pr o t ec t his se cu ri ty agr eement . We see no r elevanc e o f the sec ur ity agr eement atta ch ed to hi s b rief (w h i ch pu rp ortsto define a cr edit or -d ebt or re latio nship bet wee n “Pau l West Kimm ell” and “PA

UL WEST KIMM

ELL”) to t his suit . Wha t is clear fro m this se cur ity agr eement , t he as signed er ro r, and fr om so me of t he docum en ts sub m i tted at the d

i stri ct courtis tha t Kimm

ell att ache s significance t o t he wr iting of nam es in al l ca pi tal l ette rs an d b el i evestha t a f ul l y ca pi tal ize d nam e i s th at of a debtor or a l egal

fi ction l ike
a co rp or at ion. He a ppa re nt ly beli eves t hat any

ot her full c ap it aliz at io n o f a n ame no t o r din ar ily fully capi tali zed is imp r o pe ran d t ha t a c o ur t ca nno t bin d a n in di vid ua l o ren t it y who uses uppe r- and l ower-c as e t o sp ell his , he r , o rit s na me b y sig ning o r de r s a nd jud gme nt s t ha t co nt ain full cap italizat ions of tho se names. Kim mel l’s the ory of the mea ni ng of capi tali zation i s nei

ther the law
nor t he pr act ice in this C ou rt , a nd we f i nd n o in di cation tha

t the distri ct courtem

ploye d this the ory to hi s detrim

ent in this case. We concl ude that Ki

mm el l h as not shown error in

the dis tricts court ’s rul

in gs and h as not sho wn himself entit led t o a ny o f t he r elie f he r eq ue st s by h is a pp ea l. We o ve rrule all Kim mel l’s points of e

rror and aff

irm the judgm

ent. Al l pe ndi ng m ot ions and rel ie f requested are deni ed.

Mack Ki dd, Justice Be f ore J us ti ceK i dd, Ye ak el

an d Pa tters on6

Af fi rmed File d: February

22, 2002 Do No t Publis

h