THE LAW. AFTER HIS
CONVICTION AND FIRST ITER EFFORTS TO OVERTURN HIS CONVTCTTON, HE.
WAS n.T^EQUIPPED TO DEAL WITH HABEAS LAW. HAVING RECEIVED NO
ASSISTANCE OF ANY KIND FROM HIS COUNSEL OR THE JUDGE. HE WAS LEFT
TO FEND FOR HTMSELF IN TRYING TO PREPARE HIS PREVIOUS APPLICATIONS.
HE HAD TO COPE WITH VERY LIMITED ACCESS TO HIS UNIT'S LD3RARY. HAD
TO DEAL WITH OUTDATED MATERIALS. AND HAD NO ACCESS TO MODERN
TECHNOLOGY. AFTF.R TTF. HAD WORKED TEN HOURS A DAY. FIVE DAYS A
WEEK. THERE WAS LITTLE TIME OR ENERGY LEFT TO DEAL WITH
WRIT-LAW. HE. WAS SURROUNDED BY "PRETEND LAWYERS". OTHERS WHO
WERE INCARCERATED, OFFERING TO HELP FOR SOME KIND OF "FEE."
APPLICANT'S ATTEMPTS TO DEAL WITH PREPARATION OF HIS
APPLICATIONS HAVE BEEN INSUFFICIENT. ESPECIALLY WITH REGARD TO
HIS SECOND ATTEMPT WHICH WAS DISMISSED FOR NON-COMPLIANCE. THE
MERITS OF HIS CASE NOT HAVING BEEN CONSIDERED.
APPLICANT'S SECOND APPLICATION SPEAKS FOR ITSELF ON THIS
ISSUE. AS FT CLEARLY DEMONSTRATES THAT HE WAS UNABLE EVEN TO
NEGOTIATE THE REQUIREMENTS OF THE WRIT FORM. UNABLE TO FULLY
COMPREHEND THE INSTRUCTIONS. YET DOING THE BEST HE COULD WITH
HIS MEMORANDUM OF LAW.
FACT IS. THE ONLY WRIT "TOOLS" AVAILABLE TO HTM AT HIS TTNTT
WERE OUTDATED AND INCOMPLETE. BUT EVEN IF PERFECT. WOULD NOT BE
ADEQUATELY UNDERSTOOD AND IMPLEMENTED BYAPPLICANT.
HAD APPLICANT BEEN GIVEN SOME KIND OF NOTICE OR "HEADS UP" BY
HIS COUNSEL OR TRIAL COURT REGARDING THE NATURE, OR EVEN THE
AVAn.ARnjTY OF THE HABEAS LAW. HE COULD HAVE STARTED MUCH
EARLIER TRYING TO PREPARE FOR THAT JOURNEY. INCLUDING TRYING TO
SECURE FINANCES, AND THE PROBABILITY IS THAT HE WOULD HAVE BEEN
SUCCESSFUL AND WOULD NOT PRESENTLY BE INCARCERATED. IT IS A FACT.
OF WHICH THIS COURT HAS JUDICIAL KNOWLEDGE. THAT AN APPLICANT
HAS A BETTER CHANCE OF SUCCESS. ESPECIALLY WITH HIS FTRST
APPLICATION. WHEN HE'S HAD THE BENEFIT OF ADVICE, OR ASSISTANCE OF
SOME KIND. FROMA TRUE LEGAL COUNSEL.
APPLICANT WAS ILL-EQUIPPED TO NEGOTIATE THIS PROCESS
WITHOUT SOME KIND OF GUIDANCE OR ADVICE FROM HIS COUNSEL OR THE
COURT. (THE COURT'S STATISTICS - EXHTBTT 13-SUPPORT THIS)
GROUND NINE:
OUR WRIT OF HABEAS CORPUS LAW IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL
(SECTION 4(aWc). ARTICLE 11.07. TEX. CODE CRIM. PROC ) FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND NINE:
THE TEXAS LAW REGARDING SUBSEQUENT WRTT APPLICATIONS WAS TOO STRINGENT. DIFFICULT. AND COMPLEX FOR APPLICANT TO
SUCCESSFULLY NEGOTIATE WITHOUT TRUE LEGAL COUNSEL. APPLICANT PERSONALLY WANTED THE BENEFITS OF THTS LAW. AND HE STILL DOES HE HAS BEENDENIED HIS RIGHT TO SEEK REDRESS VTA "THE GREAT WRTT OF LIBERTY." (BLACKSTONFl. SECTION 4 (a)-(c). THOUGH WELL-TNTENDET^ TS PROHIBITIVE. APPLICANT KNOWS THAT MOST APPLICANTS "FLUNK" THIS LAW TTF
KNOWS THAT ARTICLE 11.07 HAS MANY PARTS. ALL SPEAKING LAWYER'S LANGUAGE. HE PERSONALLY KHVQWS THAT THE INSTITUTIONAL DTVTSTON OF THE TEXAS DEPARTMENT OF CRIMINAL JUSTICE IS ILL-EQUIPPED WTTH THE "TOOLS" NEEDED BY "INMATES" TO FULLY COMPREHEND. AND THEN IMPLEMENT THIS TAW. THE "SUBSEQUENT-APPLICATION" RULE (THE "ABUSE OF WRIT DOCTRINE") IS THE ESPECIALLY EGREGIOUS PART OF TEXAS WRIT LAW. FURTHER. APPLICANT PERSONATLY KHVQWS THAT TT TS