### TEXA S C OU R T OF A PPEAL S, THIR D DIST R ICT , AT AU STIN
NO. 03-0 9 -00 052 -CV

Je r r y D . Br um baug h , A ppe lla nt

v. Sherif f Gre g Ham ilton , Appellee

F ROM THE COUNTY COURT AT LAW NO. 1 OF TRAVIS COUNTY NO. C-1- CV-08 -01 1646 , HO NORAB LE J. DAVID P HI LLIP S , JUDGE PRESIDI NG

M E M O R

A N D U M O P I N I O N
J err y D. B rumbaug h appea ls from the dismissal of his suit as fr ivolous. A trial court
c an d ism iss a

su it f ile d b y an in dig e nt a s f

ri vo lou s a ft e r c on sid e ri ngwh e the r ( 1) the a c tio n’ s r e a lis tic
c ha nc e of ul ti mat e su c c e ss i s sl ig ht; (2 ) t he c la im h a s n o a

rgua ble ba sis in l aw o r i n f

a c t; o r ( 3) it is c le ar t hat th e pa rt y c ann ot p ro ve a set o f f

a c ts i n s up po rt

of the c la im. Te x. Civ . Pr a c . & Re m. Co d e A n n . § 1 3
. 0 0 1 ( We s t 2 0 0 2 )
. We r e v ie w s u c h a d is mi s s a l f o r an a b u s e o f d is c r e tion. B lack v. Jac kson , 82 S.W .3d 44, 49-50 (Te x . App.—Tyler 2002, no pe t.). The test for abuse of discretion is whether the trial court a cted without re fer ence to any g uiding r

ules and princ iples or whethe r the ac t was ar

bitrary and unre asonable
. Downer v. Aquamarine Operators, Inc. , 701 S.W .2d 238, 24 1- 42 (T e x. 19 85 ). We a ff ir m. At the trial cour

t, B rumbaug h complained of mind-controlled informants infring ing
on his fr e e do m to di scu ss th e im pr op ri e ty of the dr ugla ws , th e de pr ivatio n o f h is r ig ht t o f re e ly2

buy , sell, use, and e njoy drug s, t h e d ep ri vation of life a nd liberty inflicted by

drug raids, the op pr e ssi ve natur e of

dr ive r’ s li c e ns e s and

sp e e d li mit s ( du e in p art to the op po rt un ity c os t re la te d to
u n nece ssarily

long dr iving times), Sher iff Gr egHamilton’s failure to investigate B rumbaug h’s claims of ele ctronic intrus io n in to his li fe a

nd failure to protect B rumbaug h from ele ctronic intrusion, the improper a

pplication of the b an k ru p t cy statutes, and other

claims. Br

umbaug h reque sted “[a]
c on sti tut ion a l Ru lin g to d e ny us ur patio n o ve r C ivi l li be rt ie s, and re sto re the ru le of

law. ” He a lso reque sted a de clar ation of which pe rson or a g ency was “ mind controlling” and har as s i ng him and which per sons or ag encie s wer e interfe ring with his claims in the trial court. He f urther r equeste d decla rations that he wa s one of “We the people” m entioned in the preamble t o the Constitut ion, that
no le g isl a tiv e a c t or law c ou ld vio la te the Con sti tut ion , th a t he is n ot s ub je c t to the dr ive r’ s li c e ns e require ment, and that a g rand jury should be empaneled to investi g ate c laims of mind control made in a book. He also reque sted remova l of mind control device s. On appe al, B rumbaug h emphasizes his c omp la int s r e g ard ingthe dr ugwa r, the ba nk rutpc y c od e , a nd min d c on tr ol. We have r eviewe d the re cord a nd find no abus e o f d i scre tion in the trial court’s dismiss al of B rumbaug h’s claims. Although Br umbaug h made many claims and supplied copious citation in support, we ca

nnot sa y that the cour

t acted unr easona

bly by concludingthat Br

umbaug h’s
c a se wa s unli ke ly

to s uc c e e d a

nd wa s n ot s up po rt e d b y

argua ble law o r p ro va

ble fa c t.

G. Alan Waldrop, Just ice Be fore Chief J ustice Jones, J ustices Waldrop and He nson Affir med Filed: Oc tober 2, 2009