that the Taxas Court of Criminal Appcals ayoears to have miscon¥` 'strued a statute,rule of law.aa it has so tar departed from the acceptsd.and us#" ual course of gu@icial proceedings,and so far sanctioneo such a departure by ~ `the lower Court of hopeals,aa to call for an axcciae of this Texaa Supremo Cou- rt's Justicec~pover of supervision.$ee Continental Co£fee Products Co.V.Cazarcz, 937 S.w.Zd 44@,44§,& n"Z(Tax.lSQG)."As this legal matter sub Judice is concern-' ec,whsn a particcsac Statutc[Atx.l,§lO,& lE,Tex~Const.];Art lch?¢§B(b)(ctc),Tex. C.C.P)craates a cause of action.the Court's Juriséiction oapands on that incich@' ted statute;sub)ect-matter gurisdiction cannot be prosumeo and cannot be uaiveo¥ "Since lack of Jurisdiction makes a Jucgment void not lust voidable?ld;&s§co V.B Forrsst,?§§ S,W.Zd 700¢703(Tex.2990)§smae);€f"&eebe V.j$alps,&§® F.Zd 774,776(~
Sth Cir.lSSl)(auyrema Court precedent cited therein). C) This Texas Suprcma Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Taxas Court,of~
Criminal Appeals,pursuant to Articlo 5,§ SA of the Texaa Constitution.and"hrt. é.lG(TCCP);Taxaa Government Coéc.§@i§nzzi(b);Texas Supreme Court's Rule 52.1,52£; SS.B(b)(l),(Z .(3),& (c).57.3¢57.4,53.5,60.2(&)(o):(e),& (1)160.3,60.6,7241,72.~ Q:and 52.7(5),(1),(2),(b),and ic.at 52.3(e);§4.3 & 44.4&3){1),(2).All these gro~ vioicns apply when an hypellats Court dismisses an apyeal,with out correcting ~ the trial Court's inaction or improper~illegal actions to adopt ann allow an ill- egal third Parti'(s) intervention,and thus its{cr.€t.'a] erroneous failure to Q@g act as requested by this RELATOR ~ is a failure to yeriorm it's ministerial outy ana tunction under thc facts and law of this Relator's habeas corpus case.Henoce, the Court of Criminal Appeals/Resyondcnt(s) inactions prevented the oropcb ore~ sentation of this Rclator's case at bar,ano could not have §uly considered Rel" ator's petition based upon his ground One error of lawiRegarding the trial Court and it's presiding judge lacking subBeCt-matter gurisdiction.n none waivable is~ sus.nor right,nor can such Juriscictional defactibs forfietec,not even with con4 sent os~all,or any Party(s) of intesest...wrose yet,the trial Court's habeas co- rpus judge or intrudsr.re£uscd to accept Relator'a Compulsory Countpr~ciaim au-. ainst those third Party interveners.Thus,&he trial Court failed to act in ruling_ on both habeas cor§us yetitione,and,cf the said counter-claimwInwhich,prior to- the trial Court's judge or and its Clerk(s),dacision to torward some application for a writ al habeas copua to the Texas Court of Criminal hoyeala,nslator tima&; ly sent,and submitted his iG-yage npplication for a writ of mandamus to said Apj pellate Court¢lnwhich an ina§&d ntcuncs stamp-mark ss AB€L hCOSTA,CLERK"Who_did
not sign such a remark or comment implying it received and presented to the[not- this ?~]Court.Dated 7/13/15'& then subposely denied-without'anj written rcer~ on 8/5/15...And although this remark of stirowt a written order is implied)thsrc it no indication the white card is in afact an GRDER OR JUDGMENT.This in fact is an error of law.an§ evidently is defects in proceéuros applied or used by said - 4chooncient(a).ir`uth'ering this argument,hbel acosta,and or a single Jssticc does ¢ot havé power to dismiss either-writ of haboas corpua_or urituoé mandamus-Sei ` iigcivii." <"""' "
i" . ` ..\.~ 1
Rul§ l0.0Q(a§(l),(2)(T§x{R.App.P.)~ "in part'r' Buh in § Civil cas§.a.§ipgl§# justice §houl§ not ~[§ic} act on a paticion icc an extraordinary writr;in]or-
dismiss or otherwise determine an appeal or a motion tc br