## RECEIVED
SEP 2 2015 

# 08-15-00132-CV
CAUSE NO. 08-15-00132-CV DENISE PAGHgCO, CLEM EIGHTH COURT OF APPEALS EIGHTH COURT OF APPEAL

AT EL PASO COUNTY 

### 500 EAST SAN ANTONIO, SUITE 1203 EL PASO, TEXAS 79901-2421 

### Monte Ruben Swanzy 

### Appellant, InProperPropriaPersona rtLzu \n 

### SEP 02 2015 vs. i

## ^^^iiil^ii^u^. APPELLEES'


### APPEAL FROM THE 192ndDISTRICT COURT TAX COURT DALLAS COUNTY

DALLAS, TEXAS TX-12-40611

APPELLANT REPLY BRIEF

Monte Ruben Swanzy, Appellant In ProperPropriaPersona 9423 Clearhurst Drive Dallas, Texas 75238 Phone Number (469) 540-0908 pastormonte@sbcglobal.net

Appellant's Replyto BriefofAppellee, CauseNo. 08-15-00132-CV - iTABLE OF CONTENTS Page CASE STYLE i INDEX OF AUTHORITIES ii STATEMENT OF THE CASE iv ISSUES PRESENTED FOR REVIEW 1 STATEMENT OF FACTS 1 ISSUES 1 THROUGH 5 ARGUMENTS 4 ISSUES 5 THROUGH 10 ARGUMENTS 5 CONCLUSION AND PRAYER 7 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 8 APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF APPENDIX 9 CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE 10 INDEX OFAUTHORITIES CASES Alfonso v. Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tex.2008)(percuriam) 4 Brownv. Texas, 443 US 47 4 Christian v. State, 865 S.W.2d 198, 201 

### (Tex.App.-Dallas 1993, pet.refd) 5 Commanderv. Bryan, 123 S. W.2d 1008, (Tex.Civ.App., 

### Fort Worth, 1938, n.w.h); 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 262,page 177 6 El-Kareh v. TexasAlcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 874 S.W.2d 192, Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV - ii194 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist] 1994, no writ) 6 Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399 

### *1 (Tex.App.-TylerAug. 30, 1999, nopet.h.) 6 Exparte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 (Tex.Crim.App. 2001) 5 Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex.1990) 5 Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, (Tex.Com.App., 1922) 6 OAICCommercial Assets, L.L.C. v. Stonegate Village, L.P., 234 S.W.3d 726, 735 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet.denied) 4 State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d, 486 4,5 The Texas Taxpayer & StudentFairness Coalition, et al, Calhoun 

### CountyISD, etal., EdgewoodISD, et al, Fort BendISD, etal, Texas CharterSchoolAssociation, et al; Joyce Coleman, et al, Intervenors; Michael Williams, Commissioner of Education, in 

### His Official Capacity; Susan Combs, Texas Comptrollerof Public Accounts, inHer Official Capacity; Texas StateBoardof Education... 2 Univ. ofTex. Sw.MedCtr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140S.W.3d351,358(Tex.2004) 4 

### West Orange-Cove Cons. I.S.D. v. Neely, 176 S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex. 2005) ["WOC 11"] (quoting Carrollton-Farmers Branch I.S.D. v.Edgewood I.S.D. 826 S.W.2d489, 502 (Tex. 1992)) ["EdgewoodIIP] 1 STATUTES 

### Texas Rules ofAppellantProcedure 38.6(c) iv Texas Tax Code §33.41 3 

### Texas Tax Code §33.43 3 Texas Constitution Article VIII, Section 1(e) 1 Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV- iiiAPPELLANTREPLYTO BRIEF OFAPPELLEE'S, RICHARDSONISD AND DALLAS COUNTY, ET. AL. TO THE JUDGE OF EIGHTH COURT OFAPPEALS: 

### Appellant, Monte Ruben Swanzy, (Swanzy/Appellant) in the above styled and numbered appeal, files this Reply Briefpursuant to TRAP r38.6(c), and would further show the Courtthe following:
STATEMENT OF THE CASE 

### Swanzy is without counsel, and is not a lawyer and appears before the Honorable 8th Court ofAppeals, a man, In Proper Propria Persona and specifically rebuts any reference to appearing pro se. 

### In compliance with the Texas Rule ofAppellate Procedure Swanzy seeks this 

### civil suit appeal from the 192nd Judicial District, Tax Court, Dallas, Texas for a Void Order ofSale (CIR.No. -63, at Appellate Record TX-14-40120), on February 

### 18th, 2015, based upon Void Judgment, issued on February 4th, 2014, (Clerk's Index Record (CIR.No.-49). Original Petitioners, Richardson Independent School District (RISD), (CIR.No.-5), and Interveners, Dallas County Tax Office (DCTO), 

### lack standing in the case before the trial Court, rendering a void Final Judgment and all orders a nullity. On February 16 ,2015, after non-suite in Cause TX-12- 

### 40611, on January 15th, 2015, Appellee's counsel, Elizabeth Calvo, without standing or subject-matterjurisdiction continued to enter upon the record a request for Order of Sale, (CIR.No. -62, at Appellate Record TX-14-40120), in Cause Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV - iv

### TX-12-40611. Trial Court Judge, M. Kent Sims (Judge Sims), abused discretion 

### and/or erred; without subject-matterjurisdiction issued the trial Court's Order of Sale in this cause, based on a void Final Judgment. PRESENTED FOR REVIEW ISSUES 1 THROUGH 10 (RESTATED) 

### Appellant restates issues 1 through 10,withAppendixes presented in Appellant's Original Briefcurrently before this Court. STATEMENT OF FACTS 

### Appellant reaffirms the Statement ofFacts and Appellant's Original Brief with Appendixes currently before this Court. Appellant's Appeal Brief with 

### Appendixes is unopposed and un-rebutted by Appellees'. Appellant rebuts Appellee's StatementofFacts and responseBriefofAppellees' that is groundless, frivolous, and wholly without merit. Appellees' has no standing in the trial Court to bring the suit againstAppellants' private property as localadvalorem taxation is in violation ofTexas Constitution Article VIII, §l(e): "No State ad valorem taxes 

### shall be levied upon any property within this State." "An ad valorem tax is a state tax when it is imposed directly by the state or when the State so completely controls the levy, assessment and disbursement of revenue, either directly or 

### indirectly, that the authority employed is withoutmeaningful discretion." See West 

### Orange-Cove Cons. I.S.D. v. Neely, 176S.W.3d 746, 751 (Tex. 2005)["WOC IT] 

### (quoting Carrollton-Farmers Branch I.S.D. v. EdgewoodI.S.D. 826 S.W.2d 489, Appellant's Reply to Brief of Appellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV - 1

### 502 (Tex. 1992)) ["Edgewood IIF]. The evidence clearly establishes that local districts do not have meaningful discretion in the levy, assessment, and 

### disbursement of property taxes; therefore, the Texas school finance system 

### imposes anunconstitutional stateproperty tax. See The Texas Taxpayer &Student Fairness Coalition, etal, Calhoun County ISD, etal, EdgewoodISD, etal, Fort Bend ISD, et al, Texas Charter School Association, et al; Joyce Coleman, et al, Intervenors; Michael Williams, Commissioner of Education, in His Official 

### Capacity; Susan Combs, Texas Comptroller ofPublic Accounts, in Her Official Capacity; Texas State Board ofEducation. (Cause D-l-GN-11-003130). See also letter from former Governor ofTexas the late Honorable, Ann Richards, (Appx. 

### No.l). Therefore, Appellees' failed to state claim for which relief can begranted. The question begs that since it has been ruled by Texas Courts that the State ofTexas has no subject-matter Jurisdiction to levy the unconstitutional ad valorem 

### tax, by whatauthority and jurisdictiondoes the State ofTexas have to assign any political subdivision ofthe State ofTexas the authority to levy, assess, or collect the unconstitutional ad valorem tax claimed by Petitioners, RISD and Intervenors, Dallas County? 

### Swanzy objects to Appellees' claim ofSwanzy as Defendant in Cause TX12-40611; Swanzy is the Creditor before the trail Court, and Appellees' are the Debtors. Swanzy objects to subject property's tax situs as being a "taxable event in
Appellant's Replyto Brief ofAppellee, CauseNo. 08-15-00132-CV - 2commerce" originating from the appraisal of Dallas County Appraisal District (DCAD). No evidence or Affidavit by a competent fact witness (the maker ofthe 

### record) subject to cross-examination in support of Appellees' claim has been submitted by any taxing authority to validate Appellees' claim upon Swanzy's subjectprivate property. Appellant denies that spouse, Patricia Conley Swanzy, (living in Texas), is
or has ever been the trustee of F.R. Swanzy Revocable Living Trust, and 

### Appellees' have failed to proffer any evidence to validate the allegation. Appellant 

### objects that Appellant and spouse Patricia Swanzy has an "interest" in subject property. Appellant and Patricia Swanzy has ownership ofthe private property at 

### issue. Appellant concedes that Richardson ISD and Dallas County is a political subdivision ofthe State of Texas. The petition filed by Appellees' pursuant to §33.41 or §33.43 ofthe Texas Tax Code, Texas Constitution, or the Education Code, is groundless and a frivolous filing that lacks standing before the trial court, and fails to establish subject-matterjurisdiction pertaining to the private property of Appellant. The Texas Constitution does not authorize powers of lien, 

### assessment, levy or recovery for taxation of private property for ad valorem 

### taxation. Appellant private property is not real estate, real property, commercial 

### property, residential property or a "taxable event in commerce" the subject ofthe

Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, CauseNo. 08-15-00132-CV - 3

### "ad valorem" taxation. The remainder of Appellees' allegations of alleged Statement ofFacts and Summary ofArgument, Appellant objects to as irrelevant.
APPELLANTREPLY TO APPELLEE'S RESPONSE ISSUES 1 THROUGH 5 

### Appellant reaffirms un-rebutted jurisdictional challenge Arguments 1 

### through 5 in Appellant's Appeal Briefwith attached Appendixes. On January 15, 2015, Appellees RISD allege to have non-suited their claim in Cause TX-12- 

### 40611, against Appellant and further allege to not be a proper party to this Appeal, because ofthe non-suit. Yet, on February 16, 2015, after the January 15, 2015, non-suit, without standing or subject-matter jurisdiction before the trail Court, 

### Appellee's counselor Elizabeth Calvo, submitted an After Judgment Request Form for Order ofSale in Cause TX-12-40611, {See CIR.No.-62, at Appellate Record in Cause No. TX-14-40120), See Brown v. Texas, 443 US 47. Appellees' lack standing and failed to establish subject-matterjurisdiction, SeeAlfonsov. Skadden, 251 S.W.3d 52, 55 (Tex.2008)(per curiam); OAIC Commercial Assets, L.L.C. v. 

### Stonegate Village, L.P., 234 S.W.3d 726, 735 (Tex.App.-Dallas 2007, pet.denied). Univ. of Tex. Sw.MedCtr. at Dallas v. Loutzenhiser, 140 S.W.3d 351, 358 

### (Tex.2004), in the trial Court, and in favor ofIntervenors Dallas County, et. al., the 

### Court rendered a void Judgment, therefore all orders that followed are a nullity. In State ex rel. Latty, 907 S.W.2d, 486, the appellate court may declare void any orders the trial court signed after it lost plenary power over the case. In this case

Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, CauseNo. 08-15-00132-CV - 4

### the trial Court neverhad standing or subject-matterjurisdiction, therefore, failed to state a claim for which reliefcan be granted. 

### Appellant is the owner ofthe private property with supreme title as opposed to having a mere "interest" in real estate. 

### Appellee's Arguments and Authorities in BriefofAppellees' have failed to rebut Appellant's claims, are wholly without merit and have failed to state a claim 

### for which relief can be granted. Appellant denies Appellees' arguments in their entirety.

APPELLANTREPLY TO APPELLEE'S RESPONSE ISSUES 5 THROUGH 10 

### Appellant reaffirms un-rebutted jurisdictional challenge Arguments 5 

### through 10, in Appellant's Appeal Brief with attached Appendixes. Appellees' have failed to state a claim for which reliefcan be granted. Appellee's Cause TX12-40611, is a frivolous filing that fails to establish standing before the trial Court


### or subject-matterjurisdiction against Appellants private property. See Stateex. rel Latty v. Owens, 907 S.W.2d 484, 486 (Tex. 1995); Mapco, Inc. v. Forrest, 795 S.W.2d 700, 703 (Tex. 1990). Also see Ex parte Seidel, 39 S.W.3d 221, 225 

### (Tex.Crim.App. 2001). Christian v. State, 865 S.W.2d 198, 201 (Tex.App.-Dallas 

### 1993, pet.refd). When appeal is taken from a void judgment, the appellate court must declare the judgment void. Because the appellate court may not address the merits, it must set aside the trial court'sjudgment and dismiss the

Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV - 5appeal. A void judgment may be attacked at any time by a person whose rights are affected. El-Kareh v. Texas Alcoholic Beverage Comm'n, 874 S.W.2d 192, 194 (Tex.App.~Houston [14th Dist] 1994, no writ); Evans v. C. Woods, Inc., No. 12-99-00153-CV, 1999 WL 787399, *1 (Tex.App.-Tyler Aug. 30, 1999, no 

### pet.h.). A void judgment has been termed mere waste paper, an absolute nullity; and all acts performed under it are also nullities. Again, it has been 

### said to be in law nojudgment at all, having no force or effect, conferring no rights, and binding nobody. It is good nowhere and bad everywhere, and neither lapse of time nor judicial action can impart validity. Commander v. Bryan, 123 S.W.2d 1008, (Tex.Civ.App., Fort Worth, 1938, n.w.h.); 34 Tex.Jur., Sec. 262, page 177; Maury v. Turner, 244 S.W. 809, (Tex.Com.App., 1922). The BriefofAppellee's 

### has failed to rebut Appellant's Arguments 5 through 10, therefore, Appellees' Arguments and Authorities failed in whole to rebut the merits of Appellant's Appeal BriefArguments 1 through 10, on appeal before this Court and therefore, is mute and irrelevantto thejurisdictional issues raised by Appellant. 

### This Court must render Judgment in favor ofAppellant to vacate the trial Court's void Judgment and all orders derived upon the void Final Abstract 

### Judgment, with prejudice.

Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV - 6CONCLUSIONAND PRAYER For the reasons stated, it is respectively requested that this Appellate Court 

### vacate the trial Court's void Judgment, and the April 23, 2014, Abstract Judgment, order Appellee's case dismissed with prejudice and order the release ofall liens 

### upon Swanzy's property and further issue an order for Appellant's property to be
remove from the Dallas County Appraisal District's tax rolls. Respectfully Submitted, 

# /^/<^^iZc^^^tJ<^Jrfz*j-z>ij^j, MonteRubenSwanzy,InPropriaPers^^^f Appellant ^^ In care of: 9423 Clearhurst Drive 

### Dallas, Texas [near 75238] Phone (469) 540-0908 pastormonte@sbcglobal.net

Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV - 7CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

Monte Ruben Swanzy, hereby certify pursuantto Texas Rules ofCivil Procedure r 21(a) that a true and correct copy ofthe foregoing Appellant Briefhas been duly executed on this the 31st Day ofAugust, 2015, which has been forwarded via U.S. Postal Service First Class Certified Mail, a true and correct copy ofthe above and foregoing to counsel ofrecord for the parties Appellees listed at the address ofrecord for counsel as follows: Richardson Independent School District, Kay Waggoner, Elizabeth Bando Calvo, (24012238), Ashley Steele Atkins, (24072364) PURDUE, BRANDON, FIELDER, COLLINS & MOTT, L.L.P., 500 E. Border, Suite 640 ARLINGTON, TEXAS 76094-0430 CM # 7012 3460 0002 8080 7606 U.S. Postal Service First Class Mail Kay Waggoner 970 Security Row Richardson, Texas 75081 ADESOLA ADEYEMI P.O. BOX 832130 RICHARDSON, TEXAS 75083 John R. Ames c/o Dallas County Tax Office 500 Elm Street Dallas, Texas 75202 John R. Ames CTA, BridgetMoreno Lopez State BarNo. 24012989, Pamela Pope Johnson State BarNo. 10819850, Edward Lopez, Jr State BarNo. 12563520, Evelyn ConnerHicks State BarNo. 09575900, Brandon E. Lane State Bar No. 24039007, A. Judith Guzman State BarNo. 24025972, Isaac Faz State BarNo. 24069704, Mark S. Harris State BarNo. 24050723. LINEBARGER GOGGAN BLAIR & SAMPSON, LLP 2777 N. Stemmons Freeway Suite 1000 Dallas, TX 75207 CM # 7012 3460 0002 8080 7415 U.S. Postal Service First Class Mail



### Monte Ruben Swanzy, In Propria'. In care of: 9423 Clearhurst Drive Dallas, Texas [near 75238] Phone 469-540-0908 pastormonte@sbcglobal.net

Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, CauseNo. 08-15-00132-CV - 8APPELLANT'S REPLY BRIEF APPENDIX
LIST OFAPPELLANT'SAPPENDIXDOCUMENTS Tab Letter from former Governor ofTexas, Ann W. Richards 1

Appellant's Reply to Brief of Appellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV - 9CAUSE NO. 08-15-00132-CV At the 8th Court ofAppeals El Paso Texas Monte Ruben Swanzy, et. al., § 

### In ProperPropriaPersona, § AT THE 8THAPPEALS § COURT Appellants,
VS. § AT AND FOR § § EL PASO COUNTY, TEXAS RICHARDSON INDEPENDENT § SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL, § § Appellees'. §
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE Appellant, Monte Ruben Swanzy, does hereby certify that the Appellant's 

### Reply Brief is in compliance with a total of 1,348 computer-generated words, pursuantto the Texas Civil Rules ofAppellate Procedure r 9.4 - Form, (i)(2)(B): A briefand response in an appellate court (otherthan a briefunder subparagraph (A)) and a petition and response in an original proceeding in the court of appeals: 15,000 words if computer-generated, and 50 pages ifnot. In a civil case in the court ofappeals, the aggregate ofall briefs filed by a party must not exceed 27,000 words ifcomputer-generated, and 90 pages ifnot. I declare under the penalty ofperjury under laws ofthe United State ofAmerica 

### that the statements made on this Appellant's Certificate ofCompliance are to the best ofmy knowledge and beliefare true and correct. 

## MonteRuben Swanzy (J^y
Appellant's Reply to BriefofAppellee, Cause No. 08-15-00132-CV

- 10

# TABAPPELLANT REPLYAPPENDIX

--^—fWM •• Panasonic RRX svstbi *=Htt€ND. : 8172326652

AIMf jMOP^WW Stats or Texas OlflCIOITHlGoVllNOH Abit; x, T«xa s 7 8711

September 10, JS92 Har, 23 1S96 CS:: 

## ORIGINAL

Dear '•' ' *hank you for your letter regarding school finance. I appreciate your concerns. We have a pressing need in Texas to find.a concrete solution to fcfca question of financing: our public education system. As you May know, on .January :30, 1992 the Texas Suprene Court

_ . ruled SB 351 .unconstitutional,' saying that the -County Education . Distracts* (CEDs) do not have the power to collect property taxes. The Court has'given- tha state, of Texas two years to design a new system for funding-public education. According to the ruling of tha Court, the CEDs will be able to eollact taxea xn the 1991 end 1992 ta#yeara, thus allowing tha districts to operate until o new plan can be devised, in this ruling, the court stated that the collection of the CED taxmust continue in Order to guarentM that the districts are able to provide a quality education for our students. I a» still' considering the possibility of a special session to resolve the problem of public school £ininciny. if the legislature is able to agree upon e compromise. X have made o. proposal in ay "Oood School.,Plan" to resolve the -undine problem, but I have not rulfed out arypossible solutions ana ?y staff aad • I are working closely with interested parties to try co find a ' "' satisfactory resolution. your opinione are-beneficial, -and I appreciate your sharing tbaaa I appreciate your* effoxte toward on improved system of education mi our state. •thank you again tox writing. %- sincerely.

ANN W. RICHARD; Governor