Source: http://sueit.org/a-v-tm-gcto-sisd-1st-amend.html
Timestamp: 2018-09-21 22:17:57
Document Index: 80706404

Matched Legal Cases: ['Art 8', 'Art 7', 'Art 7', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Art 8', 'Art 8']

Now comes, Ronald F. Avery, Plaintiff, with his First Amended Original Petition complaining of Ms. Tavie Murphy, the Guadalupe County Tax Assessor and Collector, and the Guadalupe County Tax Office and the Seguin Independent School District, and respectfully alleges the following:
The Plaintiff requests a trial on the merits of his cause before a jury of Plaintiff’s peers and is in agreement to the jurisdiction of the court and courts of appeals all the way through the “Texas Supreme Court” in this cause of action.
2. Defendants’ Addresses
That the Defendants have been served with process at the following addresses:
Tavie Murphy, and the Guadalupe County Tax Office:
Ms. Tavie Murphy
Guadalupe County Tax Assessor and Collector
307 W. Court St.
Seguin Independent School District:
1221 E. Kingsbury St
3. State District Court has Jurisdiction
The Supreme Court of Texas has just decided that the Texas Tort Claims Act and its resulting provisions of the Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code (mainly chapters 101 through 110) do not apply in actions brought by individual taxpayers against the state and its employees, officers, managers, agents and contractors to avoid state property taxes:
“Prior cases challenging public school finance have involved individual claimants as well as school districts. The State defendants do not contest that individuals would have standing to raise the claims in this case. The interests of individual taxpayers in suitable, adequate, efficient public education and in avoiding a state property tax might well diverge from those of their school districts. But individuals’ standing to assert these constitutional claims does not deprive school districts of standing to assert the same claims.”[1]
Clearly the Supreme Court is permitting the school districts to have the same constitutional rights as an individual to sue the State of Texas regarding matters of property taxes to pay for education. Therefore, Plaintiff has an invitation from the Supreme Court of Texas to bring this suit on Constitutional grounds claiming that Article 7 Section 1 has been grossly violated for many years resulting in the present and continuous violations of Article 8 Section 1e1 and the passage of many unconstitutional contradictory provisions within the constitution of Texas in Article 7 and Article 8.
That venue is proper in this State Court in Guadalupe County as Plaintiff is a resident of Guadalupe County and his causes of action accrued in Guadalupe County, Texas. And that the damages well exceed the minimum to be sought in this State District Court.
1. Trial by Jury. 1
2. Defendants’ Addresses 1
3. State District Court has Jurisdiction. 2
4. Venue. 2
5. Table of Contents 3
6. Plaintiff is Charged an Unconstitutional Tax. 4
7. Plaintiff Warns Tavie Murphy and County Tax Office. 4
8. Plaintiff Pays all “Constitutional” Taxes 4
9. Defendant Knowingly Charges Unconstitutional Tax. 5
10. Defendant Knowingly Charges Unconstitutional Tax again. 5
11. Tax Payment Returned. 5
12. Plaintiff sends same check again. 5
13. Plaintiff receives Tax Receipt for “lawful” Taxes 6
14. Plaintiff receives Notice and Demand to pay Unconstitutional Seguin ISD Taxes 6
15. No “Discretion” used by Local Taxing Authority for 2005. 7
16. No Discretion from Notice of Appraised Value for 2005. 8
17. Plaintiff pays all Ad Valorem Property Tax to obtain Permit to Develop his Property. 9
18. School Taxes Ruled Unconstitutional Must Be Unconstitutional for more than an infinitesimal instant 9
19. Principles of Taxation not Sought or Found in Recent Texas Supreme Court Ruling. 10
20. Supreme Court’s Clue – No Ad Valorem Tax on property in Texas 11
21. The New Funding System is the Old Funding System.. 12
22. Passage of New School Finance Bill Cannot Correct Past Present and Future Unconstitutional Funding Systems 13
23. No Guaranteed Constitutional Solution. 13
24. Supreme Court did not say that anything passed by the Legislature by the deadline would be automatically lawful 14
25. No period of time shown to have a constitutional ad valorem property tax since 1992. 15
26. State Legislature cannot pass their Duty to provide Free Public Schools back to local areas 15
27. Duty to Establish, Support and Maintain Efficient Free Public Schools must remain solely with the State of Texas 16
28. The State is Forbidden to Impose an Ad Valorem Tax on any Property in Texas 17
29. Legislature Powerless to pass duty back to local areas or Grant to Others what it lacks in itself 18
30. Community Free to Seize Local Private Property is a false doctrine of Pure Democracy. 19
31. Principles of Taxation. 19
32. Means of Taxation Limited as any other Power 20
33. Consent of Community cannot Lien the Property of an Individual 21
34. Education and Law exist to Protect the Property of Citizens of Texas 22
35. Property is the Foundation of Texas and America Education and Law. 23
36. Principles of Taxation in Texas Constitution need Clarification. 24
37. Clear Example of Contradiction of Principle. 25
38. The Supreme Court makes Uniformity the Violation. 25
39. Uniformity has nothing to do with Maximum Limits 26
40. No authority in State or Local Areas to place a Lien upon private property for non-payment of taxes 27
41. Support and Maintenance of Government cannot endanger the ownership of Property. 28
42. “General Diffusion of knowledge” relates to uniform distribution of principles of liberty and rights 29
43. Seguin ISD has no Duty or Authority to Teach the present curriculum.. 29
44. High Cost of Unconstitutional Curriculum taught by the Seguin ISD.. 30
45. Principles of Property Limit Lawful Curriculum, Diffusion, and Support 30
46. Gross Violations Cause Failure of Society. 31
47. Supreme Court of Texas cannot authorize crime. 31
48. Plaintiff damaged by Seguin ISD abandonment of the Purpose of Free Public Education in Texas 32
49. Punitive Damages 33
50. Maximum Damages 33
51. Equitable Relief - Taxation. 33
52. Equitable Relief – public school curriculum.. 33
53. Abandonment of Claim regarding no Discretion. 33
54. Retention of Claims for all Amounts Charged Plaintiff 34
6. Plaintiff is Charged an Unconstitutional Tax
On or about October 10, 2005, the Plaintiff was sent a “Tax Statement” ( Exhibit A ) which included a charge for Seguin ISD (Seguin Independent School District). This tax was ruled unconstitutional by the Texas Supreme Court on November 22, 2005.[2]
7. Plaintiff Warns Tavie Murphy and County Tax Office
On January 19, 2006, Plaintiff sent a “Formal Notice and Demand” ( Exhibit B ) to Defendant, Tavie Murphy, warning her and the “Guadalupe County Tax Office” of the recent ruling on 11/22/05 by the Supreme Court of Texas finding that the manner of raising school taxes in Texas are unconstitutional and that any charge of such a tax would be a violation of the constitution of which she and others in her office would be liable. By charging these taxes Guadalupe County has become liable for violating Article 8 Section 1e1 of the Texas Constitution.
8. Plaintiff Pays all “Constitutional” Taxes
On February 20, 2006, Plaintiff, Ronald F. Avery, sends his “Tax Payment & Explanation” letter to Defendant, Tavie Murphy, ( Exhibit C ) with a check for payment of all taxes that have not been ruled unconstitutional by the recent opinion of the Supreme Court of Texas on three “Tax Statements.” In this letter Plaintiff, Avery, explains precisely how he calculated his tax payment and showed that he had removed the payment of any unconstitutional Seguin ISD tax payments. Avery again reminded Defendant, Murphy, of the unconstitutional Seguin School Taxes ruled so by the Texas Supreme Court on November 22, 2005. By the payment of these other taxes, the plaintiff, Avery, is not admitting that those ad valorem taxes he has paid, namely, “Lateral Roads” and “Guadalupe County” are lawful or constitutional but that these taxes have simply not been declared unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Texas. Avery does not waive any claim he might have to damages regarding taxes for “Lateral Roads” and “Guadalupe County,” paid for by an ad valorem tax on his real property.
9. Defendant Knowingly Charges Unconstitutional Tax
On Friday March 3, 2006, Plaintiff, Avery received a “Delinquent Tax Notice” ( Exhibit D ) on three properties which included the charging of taxes he had paid on February 20, 2006 and the “unconstitutional taxes” in violation of Article 8 Section 1e1. He had warned Defendant, Murphy, not to charge those same unconstitutional taxes back on January 19, 2006. These Delinquent Tax Notices reported taxes owed “as of the close of business on February 10, 2006.” Plaintiff, Avery, had not paid the ‘constitutional taxes’ on his property at that time but had already warned the Defendant, Murphy, not to charge him the “unconstitutional taxes” on January 19, 2006.
10. Defendant Knowingly Charges Unconstitutional Tax again
On March 9, 2006, Plaintiff received a “2005 Supplemental Statement” dated March 3, 2006 (Exhibit E). This supplemental statement contained another unconstitutional tax charge for Seguin ISD in violation of Article 8 Section 1e1.
11. Tax Payment Returned
On March 11, 2006, Defendant, Tavie Murphy, returns the check to the Plaintiff for his ‘constitutional taxes’ ( Exhibit F ). With this returned check was a request to designate where the Plaintiff wanted his “partial” tax payment applied.
12. Plaintiff sends same check again
On March 13, 2006, Plaintiff sends the same check to Defendant, Murphy, for his ‘constitutional taxes’ with specific written instructions to pay the taxing entities according to how the Plaintiff had originally calculated his taxes and showed on his original tax payment. The “Tax Payment, Explanation & Designation” letter ( Exhibit G ) included, as with every letter up to that time, a reminder of the unconstitutional school tax. This payment purposefully omitted all charges made by the Seguin ISD.
13. Plaintiff receives Tax Receipt for “lawful” Taxes
On April 3, 2006, Plaintiff received from Defendant, Murphy, a “Tax Receipt” ( Exhibit H ) for each of the three properties. These Tax Receipts show where the tax payment was applied from the check sent by the Plaintiff. No payment is shown to the Seguin ISD taxing entity which complied with the request made by the Plaintiff.
14. Plaintiff receives Notice and Demand to pay Unconstitutional Seguin ISD Taxes
On May 17, 2006 Plaintiff, Avery, received three letters all dated May 16, 2006 from the Defendant, “County of Guadalupe,” ( Exhibit I ) notifying Plaintiff of “unpaid taxes” and demanded that Avery pay those unconstitutional Seguin ISD taxes or prove he had paid them by sending cancelled checks, tax receipts, or other evidence showing payment to the tax office. Obviously this is another charge and collection effort employed by the Tax Office of Guadalupe County to force the Plaintiff into paying unconstitutional taxes which he warned the Tax Office not to impose charge or collect upon the subject property that he owns. This notice also imposes a penalty for not paying the unconstitutional school tax. The letters further state that this penalty is in addition to the “normal accrual of penalty and interest provided by law.” These letters further demand that the Plaintiff pay the unconstitutional Seguin ISD tax directly to the “Tax Assessor Collector of Guadalupe County.” These letters further threaten to initiate “Collection procedures” at “any time” if these “delinquent” unconstitutional taxes are not paid. The Plaintiff has paid all constitutional taxes on these three properties as evidenced by letter ( Exhibit G ).
15. No “Discretion” used by Local Taxing Authority for 2005
The Supreme Court of Texas has ruled that the “free public school funding scheme is unconstitutional” because a sufficient number of the local districts have not been able to use “meaningful discretion” in setting the tax rate sufficiently below the maximum to provide an accredited education resulting in a state wide ad valorem tax which is forbidden under Article 8 Section 1e1:
“Even if each category of evidence would not, by itself, prove a constitutional violation, all of this evidence taken together, along with the extensive record before us, clearly shows that school districts have lost meaningful discretion to tax below maximum rates and still provide an accredited education. In reaching this conclusion, we do not alter any standard we have previously announced, as the dissent charges, or adopt positions the Court has previously rejected, as the dissent suggests. The question, as we stated in Edgewood III, is whether school districts have meaningful discretion to tax below maximum rates, and the answer is that they do not.”[3]
Therefore, every school district in Texas, for at least the year of 2005, has had no meaningful discretion in determining the tax rates owed and charged and are therefore all unconstitutional. It is clear from a quick review of the original “Tax Statement” (Exhibit A) and the “Notice and Demand for Payment of Delinquent Tax” letters ( Exhibit I ) that there was no new, altered or revised discretion used to come into compliance with the latest opinion of the Supreme Court. The “unpaid and unconstitutional” taxes were multiplied by the Penalty and Interest (PI) factor shown on Exhibit A for those months. There was no attempt to use a new margin of meaningful discretion since the ruling of the Supreme Court of Texas in charging a lesser tax rate than the maximum or “sufficiently near the maximum” to make the subject tax imposition, charge, and demand for payment a constitutional tax as defined by the Supreme Court in their Opinion of 11/22/05. In fact, the Defendants, Murphy and the Guadalupe County Tax Office, and Seguin ISD merely continued to charge exactly the identical tax that had been ruled unconstitutional both locally and statewide. The said defendants should have known that those taxes were ruled unconstitutional as the ruling was all over the news and they did nothing to modify their behavior to come into any compliance with the Supreme Court ruling. All the Defendants continue to charge this unconstitutional tax even after Defendant Murphy had been warned not to do so by the Plaintiff in several letters.
16. No Discretion from Notice of Appraised Value for 2005
The “2005 Notice of Appraised Value” ( Exhibit J ) shows very little difference between the estimated tax rate on May 2, 2005 and the charged amount that became due and payable on January 31, 2006 ( Exhibit A ). The following chart shows the relationship of the Seguin ISD rates and taxes:
2005 Estimated Tax
1.694400
1.689000
The chart shows that the 2005 tax rate was set 0.54 cents per $100.00 evaluation lower (0.0054) than the previous year. The tax was $15.47 less than estimated for the 3.74 acres; $15.40 more for the personal property; and $1.86 less for the 1.6 acres. Therefore the final 2005 charge for the Seguin ISD on these three properties was $1.93 less than “estimated” earlier that year. The tax rate and amount estimated and charged are both unconstitutional as ruled by the Supreme Court of Texas as of 11/22/05. These values were not changed or modified in any way by Guadalupe County or the Seguin ISD or the Guadalupe County Tax Assessor Collector, to reflect a new “meaningful discretion” that was not available to them earlier. Therefore, the Plaintiff has been charged unconstitutional unlawful taxes and has been assessed attorney’s fees, penalties and interests on taxes that are unlawful. The Plaintiff has further been threatened with foreclosure if he does not pay these unconstitutional taxes, penalties, interests and attorney’s fees.
17. Plaintiff pays all Ad Valorem Property Tax to obtain Permit to Develop his Property
One hour after filing this suit the Plaintiff paid all ad valorem property taxes charged to him as of that date, whether lawful or otherwise, in order to obtain permits to develop an RV Park on the subject property in McQueeney, Texas. The County requires that the owner certify that there are no ad valorem property taxes outstanding on the subject property. The Plaintiff has been intending to build said park, on and off, since he owned the property.
18. School Taxes Ruled Unconstitutional Must Be Unconstitutional for more than an infinitesimal instant
The Plaintiff has been paying unconstitutional school taxes on his property for the entire time that he has owned the property in question herein. The unconstitutional school taxes have been collected, at least since 1992 as evidenced by a letter from Governor Ann Richards ( Exhibit K ) and Avery has owned the subject property since 1995 and paid around $40,000 plus about $27,000 in back taxes “owed” before he acquired it. He paid all ad valorem property taxes charged him for years 2005 and 2006 totaling $13,897 right after filing this suit. This totals to somewhere around $80,897 in actual damages. The Supreme Court of Texas has unlawfully made itself an indispensable and constant component of the Texas “public free schools,” for no other entity or human being can at any time determine if the “funding scheme for free public schools” is constitutional under the present Supreme Court ruling and analysis. The Supreme Court has neither determined when the system became constitutional nor when it became unconstitutional in the last 14 years. The Supreme Court of Texas merely ruled on 11/22/05 that the “funding scheme” is unconstitutional for that nanosecond in which they determined it so. And even after the passage into law of the new so called “House Bill 3” engineered by Governor Rick Perry and John Sharp (Perry/Sharp Plan) no one on earth can say if the system is corrected without another trip to the Supreme Court. The Plaintiff maintains herein that the new House Bill 3 scheme funding the public free schools in Texas is a continuation of the old “scheme” and it will never be fixed by merely raising some other tax to temporarily offset the amount of money presently obtained by the maximum tax rate chargeable for ad valorem taxation in Texas. The real principles of taxation were not addressed by the parties or the Supreme Count in its most recent ruling of 11/22/05. The whole matter was that schools needed even more money than the maximum ad valorem property tax rate would provide. It is clear that those who run the modern free pubic schools in Texas do not understand the purpose of education in Texas and have plundered the citizens to produce graduates who are clueless as to how to preserve their freedom and liberty. They have saturated the minds of students with things they have no authority or obligation to teach and have neglected to inculcate those principles delegated to them to instruct students for the protection of the property of every citizen in Texas.
19. Principles of Taxation not Sought or Found in Recent Texas Supreme Court Ruling
The most recent ruling of 11/22/05 made by the Supreme Court was not based upon a stated fundamental constitutional law or principle but a ruling on the issues brought by the parties to the suit. But in this instant suit we seek the real Principles of Taxation limited by the Law of Property by showing that a law that is fundamental to the constitution created by the delegated authority of the people cannot be so obscure that only 9 Supreme Court Justices could determine when it is in violation. Such a law cannot rest upon an arbitrary, continually changing number of districts, imposing an arbitrary continually changing tax rate, on a continually changing valuation of the property owned by the citizens. The fundamental law regarding all ad valorem property taxes in Texas is expressed in Article 8 Section 1e1: “No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State.”
20. Supreme Court’s Clue – No Ad Valorem Tax on property in Texas
The 11/22/05 Opinion of the Supreme Court generating the Special Session of the Texas Legislature to come up with a lawful way to fund “free public schools” in Texas expressed the notion that ad valorem taxation on land and buildings is not a way to support public schools:
“Each case must necessarily turn on its own particulars. Although parsing the differences may be likened to dancing on the head of a pin, it is the Legislature which has created the pin, summoned the dancers, and called the tune. The Legislature can avoid these constitutional conundra by choosing another path altogether.”[4]
The Supreme Court spoke plainly on how to avoid these constant trips to the court, namely, avoid all ad valorem property taxes. Other than that statement the Supreme Court did not give a particular solution to the “conundrum” generated by the present system of ad valorem property taxation unlawfully imposed by local districts. It is only presumed by the Legislature that the new House Bill 3 just passed on 5/17/06 is a constitutional solution to the Supreme Court’s ruling. However, even if House Bill 3 did meet constitutional means of funding the free public school it is not known by anyone until a case goes to the Supreme Court again testing its provisions and results. Therefore, the Seguin ISD taxes charged to Plaintiff for 2005 remain unconstitutional as the Supreme Court has ruled on 11/22/05. The Supreme Court of Texas did astutely suggest that this conundrum could be avoided altogether by a system of funding that did not use ad valorem property taxation at all. And certainly the Supreme Court did not suggest supplementing the present “conundrum” with another type of tax. The “new system,” just passed, did not take a new and different approach but merely raised other taxes, namely franchise taxes, to supposedly permit the local districts to charge a lesser ad valorem property tax rate and presumably continually do so.
21. The New Funding System is the Old Funding System
The new system is a continuation of the old system that charges ad valorem property taxes which are unlawful under the Laws of Property that create government, limit government’s authority, and limit the means of lawfully funding the operation of government. We all know that when the annual property evaluations go up there will be no savings to the “taxpayer” in contradiction to the implied intent of the recent Supreme Court ruling and explicit intent of Perry/Sharp Plan. Governor Perry has now nearly completed his “Property Tax Evaluation Task Force” public hearings under Tom Pauken’s leadership to again fool the people into thinking the State is going to really lower ad valorem property taxes and to cool the public disappointment with the result of the just pasted House Bill 3 (the fruit of the Perry/Sharp Task Force on Tax Reform) that had little effect on the high property taxes. The only real solution to this conundrum is to declare all ad valorem property taxes in Texas unconstitutional and unlawful and stop it all.
22. Passage of New School Finance Bill Cannot Correct Past Present and Future Unconstitutional Funding Systems
The Plaintiff continues to be charged unconstitutional ad valorem property taxes because it is assumed by the Legislature and public servants at the tax offices across Texas that passage of the new House Bill 3 makes past, present and future ad valorem property taxation constitutional. It is further presumed that because the Legislature passed said Bill before the expiration of the stay of injunction that enjoined the collection of public school ad valorem property taxes that all past, present and future ad valorem taxes have been cured. The said expiration date of June 1, 2006 has passed and the Plaintiff is still charged, penalized and threatened to be deprived of his property for not paying a tax that has been ruled unconstitutional by the Supreme Court of Texas on 11/22/05. This notion is falsely implied by the statements from John Sharp and Rick Perry that their new legislation lowers the ad valorem property tax by raising some other tax to make up for that reduction. How does the potential of the lowering of a future tax cure the past charge and collection of an unconstitutional tax? The stay of injunction has pasted and that would mean the injunction is now in effect and that no unlawful ad valorem tax may be charged without the potential filing of lawful suits for damages.
23. No Guaranteed Constitutional Solution
Further, the Supreme Court gave no solution for the Legislature to follow and said no solution would necessarily be constitutional:
“We have stressed this repeatedly. In Edgewood I, we wrote: Although we have ruled the school financing system to be unconstitutional, we do not now instruct the legislature as to the specifics of the legislation it should enact; nor do we order it to raise taxes.[5] In Edgewood II, we said: We do not prescribe the means which the Legislature must employ in fulfilling its duty.[6] In Edgewood III, we reiterated: As before, we do not prescribe the structure for an efficient system of public free schools . . . We have not, and we do not now, suggest that one way of school funding is better than another, or that any way is past challenge, or that any member of this Court prefers a particular course of action . . . , or that one measure or another is clearly constitutional.”[7]
Therefore, there is no way for any human being or lower court to reasonably determine the merits of this suit short of another trip to the Supreme Court of Texas. This fact alone suggests that the “funding scheme” is not based upon fundamental constitutional principles. Merely raising another tax to temporarily, if at all, reduce property taxes is no, fundamental or otherwise, solution to unconstitutional doctrines of ad valorem taxation that are unlawful by their very nature and should not have survived the 17th century.
24. Supreme Court did not say that anything passed by the Legislature by the deadline would be automatically lawful
It is strangely presumed by Governor Perry and John Sharp and many others that the passage of House Bill 3 is constitutional or in harmony with the latest Opinion of the Supreme Court. The said opinion implied no such conclusion, and in fact, the Court was very direct and explicit in saying that the solution was in the hands of the Legislature and that any system similar to the one they had was if not immediately unconstitutional would be unconstitutional very soon again:
“The Constitution does not require a particular solution. We leave such matters to the discretion of the Legislature. To end the constitutional violation, we agree with the district court that the use of the current system must be enjoined.”[8]
Therefore, House Bill 3 is merely a slight of hand trick to say look over here where all this money is just sitting around in the form of untapped franchise taxes which will let us give the poor real property owners a little ad valorem tax break for a while. But we all know that ad valorem property taxes are not controlled merely by the Legislative ceiling on the percentage of each $100 evaluation but by the local CADs or County Appraisal Districts who set the value of property in the area. Most real property owners will not feel much if anything at all as a result of this so called “tax break.” And further, it will not be long until the local districts will again be back up to the tax rate ceiling. Therefore, the citizens of Texas need a permanent lawful system to fund free public schools which rules out local ad valorem property taxation altogether as declared in Art 8 Sect 1e1.
25. No period of time shown to have a constitutional ad valorem property tax since 1992
No case or set of cases have established a period of time in which ad valorem taxes on property in Texas have been constitutional or precisely when they became constitutional and when they precisely became unconstitutional. This condition is symptomatic of a want of principle applied to taxation by the constitution and known by the citizens, which must limit the powers and authority of all branches of government in Texas. The principles of property, that all citizens should know, that determine the lawful establishment, authority and maintenance of government reveal that all ad valorem taxation in Texas has always been and will remain forever in violation of the Texas Constitution. The Seguin Independent School District has failed to inculcate these principles of property into the students of the free public schools of Texas, as required by Article 7 Section 1, and as a result, has damaged the Plaintiff in an actual amount of $80,897.
26. State Legislature cannot pass their Duty to provide Free Public Schools back to local areas
Article 7 Section 1 grants to the state legislature the “duty” and responsibility to “establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools:”
It is the citizens of the local areas and counties that delegated their authority to the State of Texas to teach the children of citizens all across Texas about why and how one should protect the life, liberty and possessions of their neighbor as well as their own. The purpose of this provision was two fold: first, to teach the fundamental Principles of Property to all students so the citizen could protect their property and secondly to make sure all students had an equal exposure across Texas to these Principles of Property. The founders perceived that placing this responsibility upon the State of Texas would be required to achieve a “general diffusion” of said principles across Texas. The founders realized that many of the local areas would not be able to provide for such a “general diffusion of knowledge” about the principles of property that other areas could provide. This would leave many areas of Texas without suitable provision, support and maintenance for teaching those principles of property. Therefore, Art 7 Sec 1 places the “duty” to provide that uniform general diffusion of the principles of property to all areas of Texas on the “State of Texas” not the local areas, counties or districts.
27. Duty to Establish, Support and Maintain Efficient Free Public Schools must remain solely with the State of Texas
The State of Texas therefore cannot pass all or any portion of that “duty” back to the local areas, which by their very nature cannot provide a “general diffusion” of the knowledge of the principles of property developed over 5000 years of recorded history. Why is it presumed by the Supreme Court of Texas that a uniform, efficient and suitable education in Texas should result from a court enforced variable tax rate well under the maximum rate imposed at the “discretion” of local areas in Texas? The “duty to establish and make suitable provision for support and maintenance” of free public schools cannot therefore be interpreted to mean; legislation of that “duty” back to the local areas. But that is exactly what the State legislature has done. The State has refused to provide that general diffusion and passed it back to the local areas, which gives rise to the disparity between rich and poor districts for which Article 7 Section 1 was originally written to avoid. And in doing so, the Supreme Court has unlawfully legislated that the local areas, districts and counties must achieve a “general diffusion” across Texas by the imposition of a non-uniform ad valorem property tax in the local districts to “supplement” or “provide” the State free public schools. This violates both Article 7 Section 1 and Article 8 Section 1e1. It is this “supplementation” or “provision” of education by the local areas that is to be avoided because of the natural and normal differences in wealth from one local area to another. All State school facilities and curriculum should be identical and uniform in every State free public school across Texas. And it should be supported by a uniform source of funds applied equally across Texas as with other State wide taxes in compliance with Article 8 Section 1(a).
28. The State is Forbidden to Impose an Ad Valorem Tax on any Property in Texas
As previously quoted, Article 8 Section 1e1 forbids the state legislature from imposing an ad valorem tax on any property in Texas. Article 7 Section 1 delegates to the State Legislature, rather than the local areas, the limited authority of each citizen to protect his own life, liberty and possessions, secured at least in one means, by the general diffusion of knowledge throughout Texas related to the liberties and rights of the people. Therefore, no free public school in Texas can be provided for, maintained, or supplemented by a local “district” or county or any other kind of State subdivision. Further, the local areas certainly cannot perform the “duty of the State” by a means which is forbidden to the State, namely, the imposition of an ad valorem property tax. It is obvious that all past, present and future ad valorem taxes on any property in Texas to support public free schools is unconstitutional and unlawful and instituted to get around Article 7 Section 1 and Article 8 Section 1e1.
29. Legislature Powerless to pass duty back to local areas or Grant to Others what it lacks in itself
The Legislature is powerless to abrogate their duty to provide, support and maintain a general diffusion of knowledge of the principles of property by passing that duty back to the local areas. The citizens of the local areas delegated that duty to the State alone. That “duty” does not include the legislative power to pass that same “duty” back to the local areas, which the local areas knew they could not perform because of the natural and normal differences in wealth from one area to another, giving rise to Article 7 Section 1 in the first place. Likewise, the Legislature is powerless to delegate to those local areas what itself is forbidden to do, namely, impose an ad valorem property tax. Therefore the local areas do not acquire the power to impose an ad valorem tax on property from the Legislature which is forbidden to impose the same. It is obvious that the passage of unlawful constitutional provisions in Articles 7 and 8 attempting to confer powers on local areas to impose and collect ad valorem property taxes is an unlawful action by the State of Texas to shift its duty and provide for public free schools by a means that is forbidden to it, namely, the imposition of ad valorem property tax. Article 8 Section 1e1 is rendered useless and void by Art 7 Sect 3; Art 8 Sect 1(b); Art 8 Sect 1-a, and a few others which unlawfully “permit” or “authorize” local areas to impose an ad valorem property tax which is forbidden to the State to provide a State function.
30. Community Free to Seize Local Private Property is a false doctrine of Pure Democracy
Presumably, the State allows local areas to vote to lien their neighbors property based upon a mistaken notion that local areas have a right to determine whether to place an ad valorem tax secured by a lien placed upon all the property of their citizens to pursue their own local interests. This is a false notion under the false doctrines of pure democracy. The only one who can determine if a lien can be placed upon their own property for failure to perform some act or pay some money is that individual not the greater community. No one in Guadalupe County can place a lien on my property without my permission and therefore no number of these people without authority can vote what they have not into being. A majority of voters can only delegate their own authority and determine by majority what to do with the authority they already possess. A majority of voters cannot obtain authority that each voter does not have prior to the election. Therefore, all Bond Elections that attempts to place a lien on private property are unlawful as the community cannot place a lien on individuals without their own individual written permission.
31. Principles of Taxation
There are indeed principles of taxation or lawful ways to fund, support and maintain government in Texas. Such principles are in fact the same set of principles that establish the formation of lawful government and which limit the powers of government and they are precedent to the constitution of government. In the state of nature prior to the construction of constitutional government the people own their property consisting of their life, liberty and possessions and they do not transfer those properties in any degree to the State upon its creation:
“To understand Political Power right, and derive it from its Original, we must consider what State all men are naturally in, and that is, a State of perfect Freedom to order their Actions, and dispose of their Possessions, and Persons as they think fit, within the bounds of the Law of Nature, without asking leave, or depending upon the Will of any other Man.[9]
The Citizens merely delegate their natural, lawful moral right to protect their properties to the State they create. Tax upon the life, liberties or possessions of citizens is a misconstruction of government for it presumes to have or obtain what it cannot obtain by any means.
32. Means of Taxation Limited as any other Power
Voting is only a means of determining what all voters have a right to do alone. Voters cannot pass to anyone else a power they do not have in each individually.
Frederic Bastiat expressed accurately the limited powers of government even to tax in his definition of all law:
Each of us has a natural right – from God – to defend his person, his liberty, and his property. These are the three basic requirements of life, and the preservation of any one of them is completely dependent upon the preservation of the other two. For what are our faculties but the extension of our individuality? And what is property but the extension of our faculties?
If every person has the right to defend – even by force – his person, his liberty, and his property, then it follows that a group of men have the right to organize and support a common force to protect these rights constantly. Thus the principle of collective right – its reason for existing, its lawfulness – is based on individual right. And the common force that protects this collective right cannot have any other purpose or any other mission than that which it acts as a substitute. Thus, since an individual cannot lawfully use force against the person, liberty, or property of another individual, then the common force – for the same reason – cannot lawfully be used to destroy the person, liberty, or property of individuals or groups.
Such a perversion of force would be, in both cases, contrary to our purpose. Force has been given to us to defend our own individual rights. Who will dare say that force has been given to us to destroy the equal right of our brothers? Since no individual acting separately can lawfully use force to destroy the rights of others, does it not logically follow that the same principle also applies to the common force that is nothing more than the organized combination of the individual forces?
If this is true, then nothing can be more evident than this: The law is the organization of the natural right of lawful defense. It is the substitution of a common force for individual forces. And this common force is to do only what the individual forces have a natural and lawful right to do: to protect persons, liberties, and properties; to maintain the right of each, and to cause justice to reign over us all.”[10]
Bastiat, the French economist, has shown conclusively that all powers created by voters are limited to the powers each has individually. Many think that once a government is delegated to protect property that this new government by its voters or representatives can impose any kind of tax upon the citizens for its support. This is a false notion generated by the false doctrines of pure democracy because the power to lien property for the payment of taxes cannot be acquired by a majority of voters upon any other single individual. Therefore, ad valorem property taxes cannot be secured by a lien imposed by a collective group of voters because no single voter among them can lawfully lien the property of any other individual.
33. Consent of Community cannot Lien the Property of an Individual
When John Locke said that the majority of voters or their representatives have a right to act and conclude the rest it was limited to that which each individual voter has a right to determine for even the power of consent is limited to what each holds individually:
“When any number of Men have so consented to make one community or government, they are thereby presently incorporated, and make one Body Politick, wherein the Majority have a right to act and conclude the rest.
For when any number of Men have, by the consent of every individual, made a Community, they have thereby made that Community one Body, with a Power to Act as one Body, which is only by the will and determination of the majority. For that which acts any Community, being only the consent of the individuals of it, and it being necessary to that which is one body to move one way; it is necessary the Body should move that way whither the greater force carries it, which is the consent of the majority: or else it is impossible it should act or continue one Body, one Community, which the consent of every individual that united into it, agreed that it should; and so every one is bound by that consent to be concluded by the majority. And therefore we see that in Assemblies impowered to act by positive Laws where no number is set by that positive Law which impowers them, the act of the Majority passes for the act of the whole, and of course determines, as having by the Law of Nature and Reason, the power of the whole.”[11]
Locke’s statement above cannot be applied to legalize a majority of voters seizing the lands and homes and businesses of the minority by voting to impose an ad valorem tax upon the property of all secured by a lien on property to be sold to the highest bidder for the payment of past due taxes for any purpose. It matters not how good the purpose of the tax. A lawful tax cannot be imposed by an attack upon the life, liberty or possessions or property of the citizen. A lawful tax may not be levied upon the person, the liberties of a person, or the possessions of a person or else the citizen is no longer a citizen but has become a slave without deed to his own soul, and without liberty to pursue their desires, and without possessions to provide for their sustenance as John Locke has so well said:
“Though the Legislative, whether placed in one or more, whether it be always in being, or only by intervals, tho’ it be the Supream Power in every Common-wealth; yet,
First, It is not, nor can possibly be absolutely Arbitrary over the Lives and Fortunes of the People. For it being but the joint power of every Member of the Society given up to that Person, or Assembly, which is Legislator, it can be no more than those persons had in a State of Nature before they enter’d into Society, and gave up to the Community. For no Body can transfer to another more power than he has in himself; and no Body has an absolute Arbitrary Power over himself, or over any other, to destroy his own life, or take away the Life or Property of another….Their Power (Legislative) in the utmost Bounds of it, is limited to the publick good of the Society. It is a Power, that hath no other end but the preservation, and therefore can never have a right to destroy, enslave, or designedly to impoverish the Subjects.[12]
We all know education is important but the property of each individual is more important than education or law. The need to meet government mandates and the high cost of education cannot be shown to be a social good over that of the protection of the property of each individual in Texas.
34. Education and Law exist to Protect the Property of Citizens of Texas
For free education in Texas exists not for its own sake but to protect the property of the citizens as stated by Article 7 Section 1, just as the law does not exist for itself but for the protection of property as Bastiat has said:
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.”[13]
So we see that the thing that is to be protected is superior to that which protects it, just as Reverend Samuel Rutherford in his 1644 book Lex Rex proved the King inferior to the People whom he was created to protect. Both education and law are inferior to property and both are designed to secure the property of the citizen. But our legal system and our education system across Texas and America have abandoned their true goals. We see global economics and democracy against the property of the people in public education and absolute sovereign immunity for the state to kill and destroy the property of citizens and eminent domain to take property and give it to developers in the legal system.
35. Property is the Foundation of Texas and America Education and Law
No private property belonging to citizens may have a lien placed upon it to secure the payment of taxes by the state or federal government or any other governmental jurisdiction or subdivision:
“We know that kings – even English kings – have lost their crowns and their heads for assuming such a right (taxation). ‘Tis true this strange claim has occasioned much contention, and it always will as long as the people understand the great charter of nature upon which Magna Charta itself is founded, - No man can take another’s property from him without his consent. This is the law of nature; and a violation of it is the same thing, whether it be done by one man who is called a king, or by five hundred of another denomination…”[14]
The quote from Samuel Adams above proves that the founders of America knew the fundamental Principles of Property that our nation was built upon. The King cannot derive this power to tax private property belonging to another neither can 500 legislators or a majority of voters. There were no ad valorem taxes upon land and buildings owned by citizens in 1776 in England or America as I had written to the County Assessor Collector quoting Adam Smith’s Wealth of Nations:
“In the province of Holland every house is taxed at two and a half per cent of its value, without any regard either to the rent which it actually pays, or to the circumstances of its being tenanted or untenanted. There seems to be a hardship in obliging the proprietor to pay a tax for an untenanted house, from which he can derive no revenue, especially so very heavy a tax. In Holland, where the market rate of interest does not exceed three per cent, two and a half per cent upon the whole value of the house must, in most cases, amount to more than a third of the building-rent, perhaps of the whole rent”[15]
It is not the percent of valuation that is egregious here but the tax itself of any amount upon real property owned by citizens because it constitutes a shift in the ownership of property from the individual Citizen to the State. There was in England at the time a “land tax” which taxed the income from the crop produced or the rent received for its use. If no income was derived there was no tax. The ad valorem property tax constitutes a fee for occupancy or rent to be paid by the tenant to the owner, the State. This is an unlawful shift in ownership or an unlawful confiscation of property.
36. Principles of Taxation in Texas Constitution need Clarification
It is clear from Art 8 Sec 17 of the Texas Constitution that there should be principles that guide taxation and that these principles should be adhered to by all three branches of government.
“The specification of the objects and subjects of taxation shall not deprive the Legislature of the power to require other subjects or objects to be taxed in such manner as may be consistent with the principles of taxation fixed in this Constitution.”[16] (Bolding added)
It is obvious that the purpose of this constitutional provision is to permit the Legislature to review all things in terms of what could be lawfully taxed. But this constitutional provision also acknowledges the just and reasonable precept that there are principles of lawful taxation that the legislature, judiciary and executive branches should adhere to, namely, that all things cannot be lawfully taxed. Upon a quick review of Articles 7 and 8 it is apparent that such principles are not “fixed” in this Constitution and have become contradictory over the years in an unlawful effort to transform the Republic of Texas (as described in Article 1 Sections 1-29 of the present Constitution) into a pure democracy where there is nothing that the legislature cannot do if a majority of the representatives vote for it. Our forefathers warned us of the tyranny of pure democracy and here it is.
37. Clear Example of Contradiction of Principle
The November 22, 2005 Supreme Court decision found that the free public education funding scheme was unconstitutional because essentially all the independent districts across Texas were imposing an ad valorem property tax at or sufficiently near the maximum rate allowed. The Supreme Court held that the districts therefore could not use discretion to determine the amount to tax but merely taxed at the maximum rate. The Supreme Court concluded that such maximum non-discretionary ad valorem taxation was really a statewide uniform ad valorem tax. Yet, Article 8 Section 1(a) says; “Taxation shall be equal and uniform.” So if there is a statewide tax it should most certainly be uniform.
38. The Supreme Court makes Uniformity the Violation
The Supreme Court was trying to make the case that each school district must use discretion at setting the local tax rate and that it should be well below the maximum allowed set by the legislature or else the taxation becomes a uniform statewide ad valorem tax forbidden under Article 8 Section 1e1. But any tax that is statewide must be uniform and equal under Article 8 Section 1(a). So we see that it is not the uniformity that is forbidden by the Constitution in regard to taxation but the actual ad valorem tax on any property in Texas that is forbidden by the fundamental principles of property precedent to constitutions. But the Supreme Court seized upon a false notion to declare the statewide uniform ad valorem tax on property unconstitutional. How can the State achieve a “general diffusion” (required under Article 7 Section 1) and equality among all school districts across the State by mandating that all local districts impose an arbitrary discretionary tax well below a maximum rate? Does that not defeat the purpose of the whole of Article 7 Section 1? The Supreme Court deemed the “uniformity” in their recent ruling as the creation of a statewide ad valorem tax on property that is unconstitutional under Art 8 Sec 1e1. But this reasoning merely circumvents the real question of whether the State can grant to the local areas what the State does not have? If the State is forbidden the power to impose an ad valorem property tax, it cannot delegate that power back to the local districts. The state may try to say that it may not prevent such a tax if the free citizens voted it into place locally. But that would constitute the State’s permission for local areas to unlawfully seize private property without authority that the State is designed to protect. The State must forbid the local districts from threatening local ownership of property by placing liens on property for the payment of ad valorem property taxes.
39. Uniformity has nothing to do with Maximum Limits
The maximum tax rate limit of $1.50 per $100 evaluation for maintenance and operations (M&O) has nothing to do with uniformity. If all the districts are now charging a lesser tax rate to bring all the local property tax yields to the 32% less, as reported by Governor Perry as the biggest tax break in years, then we still have a uniform tax rate all across Texas. Therefore, a uniform 32% decrease of a uniform State wide tax found by the Supreme Court in the tax rate being imposed across Texas by all school districts results in a uniform ad valorem tax being imposed statewide in violation of Article 8 Section 1e1. A uniform deduction of a uniform tax must remain uniform and in violation of Article 8 Section 1e1. We are right back to a uniform statewide tax rate being imposed on all private property across Texas to perform a task delegated to Texas by a means that is unlawful under Article 8 Section 1e1.
40. No authority in State or Local Areas to place a Lien upon private property for non-payment of taxes
A legislature is limited by the power delegated to it and therefore it cannot pass a statute with powers in which the legislative body does not possess the authority to establish. No person has a right to lien the property of another person without their permission. Therefore that power cannot be delegated to the Texas Legislature or any of its subdivisions or local areas. A majority of the voters in an election favoring the imposition of an ad valorem property tax secured by a lien to be placed on all real property for non-payment is not the permission of each individual property owner. If only one person in the election did not want a lien placed upon their property for the failure to pay ad valorem property taxes the State or local areas cannot lawfully place a lien on that person’s property or foreclose on same for non payment of ad valorem taxes. Any person can volunteer to pay an ad valorem property tax and place a lien on their own property for failure to do so, but no person can vote to place a lien on the property of another person. Therefore, the Texas Legislature cannot pass lawful legislation empowering the State or local areas to attach liens on property to secure the payment of ad valorem property taxes. The State simply cannot acquire that authority nor grant it to others.
41. Support and Maintenance of Government cannot endanger the ownership of Property
The sole purpose of legitimate government is the protection of the property of each citizen consisting of their life, liberty and possessions. The method of its support cannot endanger the purpose for which it was created. To admit that once lawful government is created it can lawfully be supported by a method which eventually must destroy its purpose is contradictory, futile and faithless rejection of God’s will for mankind. God has ordained that people protect their property by the creation of lawful governments and in doing so God does not saddle his creation with the futility of its support that naturally and ultimately must lead to its destruction. Therefore, no legislature may devise a method for the support of the government and its functions by a method that is destructive of its purpose. A lien placed upon property to secure the payment of taxes is the assumption of ownership over the same property. A state and its subdivisions may try to avoid the appearance of ownership by selling the property to another private citizen for payment of ad valorem taxes but it is the power to lien that the state and its subdivisions lack prior to its sale. The State does not own the property of citizens and cannot place a lien upon it or acquire an interest in it by any method outside the written permission of the individual owner. The State and its subdivisions cannot obtain a lien upon the property of a particular person by the permission of the greater community in which that particular person resides. The purpose, power, and means of support of lawful governments are limited by the laws of nature precedent to constitutions and legislations. Further, it is critical that the government stay within its lawful purpose to avoid expenses that it cannot pay without violation of the lawful means of its support.
42. “General Diffusion of knowledge” relates to uniform distribution of principles of liberty and rights
It was originally perceived by the founders that the citizens of Texas would be in danger of having their property, consisting of life, liberty and possessions, abused or taken if there were enclaves or regions in Texas where the people did not understand the principles of property and how they impact the formation and maintenance of lawful governments for the sole purpose of protecting the property of the citizens. But this “general diffusion of knowledge” has been taken out of context to mean a diffusion of all knowledge being taught to all children in Texas as opposed to the knowledge of the fundamentals of property which protect life, liberty and possessions being generally diffused over the entire citizenry of the State of Texas. This provision of the Constitution is also limited by that which each citizen holds in themselves to delegate to their representative, namely, the right to protect their life, liberty and possessions. Therefore, all that each citizen has to delegate in the way of free public education funded by government is the fundamentals of property which protect the life, liberty and possessions of each citizen.
43. Seguin ISD has no Duty or Authority to Teach the present curriculum
No person has a right or authority, much less a duty, to teach the child of another person drama or drafting or auto mechanics or football or baseball or millions of such other things. But all citizens have a right and authority to protect their property by establishing a school system that will generally diffuse across Texas the knowledge of the fundamentals of property to all children so their own property will be safe and secure. Therefore, “a general diffusion of knowledge” does not mean teaching all things to all children but rather a general diffusion of knowledge of the fundamentals of property to all citizens of Texas for the “preservation of the liberties and rights of the people.” Clearly no knowledge about football or drama or auto mechanics can preserve the liberty or rights anyone has in their property. Therefore all such expenditures must be a violation of Article 7 Section 1.
44. High Cost of Unconstitutional Curriculum taught by the Seguin ISD
The Plaintiff, Avery, has suffered the loss of $80,897 as the high cost of teaching all things to all children in the free public school system which is unconstitutional under Article 7 Section 1. Had the Seguin ISD taught the fundamental Principles of Property alone and tested the students on them prior to graduation, the local area would not be imposing unlawful ad valorem taxes on private property and the local government would have protected the Plaintiff from unlawful attacks upon his property. The local government, had they been instructed in the Principles of Property, would protect the Plaintiff and his neighbors from seizures of their private property and conversions of it from one citizen to another by the unauthorized and unlawful placement of liens, enforced by the State, upon private property unlawfully obtained by voters who have no authority over the property of another individual.
45. Principles of Property Limit Lawful Curriculum, Diffusion, and Support
The natural laws of property limit lawful curriculum to the teaching of the fundamentals of property to protect life, liberty and possessions. The natural laws of property fix the “general diffusion” of knowledge of the fundamentals of property in the State of Texas, not the local areas, to assure that all students in Texas get the same uniform knowledge of property. The natural laws of property limit the support or funding system to a method that does not threaten the ownership of property or the purpose of the State to protect property. The State must protect all property owners from those who have more wealth rather than merely those who are more physically endowed or violent. If curriculum exceeds that which is permitted by the principles of property the expense will also exceed that which is supportable by the principles of property. And if violations occur in both curriculum and funding method, the expense will consume everything the citizen has.
46. Gross Violations Cause Failure of Society
Modern graduates of the free public schools in Texas cannot defend their own property and have been subjects of immense propaganda and agendas that evade, conceal, and destroy the property of the student and citizens. The false propaganda of a “borderless world, one world religion, one world economy and one world government, and all forms of globalism, threaten the life, liberty and possessions of every citizen by the encroachment of democracy which says that the State may do anything that the majority of voters or their representatives approve. Neither the State nor the voters have such authority nor can they lawfully teach such material in free public schools in Texas.
47. Supreme Court of Texas cannot authorize crime
The Supreme Court did not have power to authorize a violation of the Constitution in 1992 nor did they have it in 2005 or any other time. The Supreme Court has power to determine the constitutionality of a matter but the Supreme Court is in want of power to permit crimes against the constitution by stays or delays of injunctions to prevent those crimes. It is fundamental that injunctions are issued to prevent crime and injustice and a stay of injunction obtained unlawfully or deceptively would operate to also stop another injustice. But the stay of an injunction, which was lawfully obtained to enjoin a crime, acts to continue a proven crime. This use of a stay of injunction is unlawful fundamental error and misuse of the purpose of such instruments. The unconstitutional method of raising money for unconstitutional education in Texas is a very serious crime against the people of Texas and their children. Therefore, the Supreme Court of Texas cannot have it both ways. They cannot find the “funding scheme” unconstitutional and then permit same by a delay of injunction to stop it. The Supreme Court of Texas has made themselves accomplices in crime by their attempt to permit crimes in the name of the children being victimized by same and the expediency of their “education,” which is clearly indoctrination into unlawful governmental systems. The Courts have grossly misread the function, purpose and condition of the system of free public schools in Texas and the serious damage to the properties of every citizen including Plaintiff. Not a single graduate of the Texas public free school system is capable of protecting their property or the property of their neighbor after the expenditure of tens of billions of dollars to “educate” them. Therefore the rights and liberties of the people are left unprotected and all children are left behind by the Legislature of Texas in violation of Article 7 Section 1.
48. Plaintiff damaged by Seguin ISD abandonment of the Purpose of Free Public Education in Texas
Article 7 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution establishes the sole purpose of free public school:
Had the Seguin ISD taught a lawful curriculum based upon property, our local taxing authorities would not be imposing unlawful taxes upon the plaintiff. The Seguin High School did not even possess a copy of the Texas Constitution on its campus until Plaintiff, Avery, presented one to them in April of 1997 ( Exhibit L ). Because the Seguin ISD continues to ignore the principles of property and refuses to learn, teach and test for the Principles of Property and how they form, limit and maintain government, the abuse of the Plaintiff’s property continues unhampered in violation of Article 7 Section 1 and Article 8 Section 1e1.
49. Punitive Damages
Due to the excessive violations of the fundamentals of the Constitution of the State of Texas placing the property of the Plaintiff at risk by the want of the Principles of Property and how they limit taxation, treble damages are due the plaintiff.
50. Maximum Damages
The Plaintiff, Avery, has suffered actual damages in the amount of $80,897.
51. Equitable Relief - Taxation
The Plaintiff, Avery, requests that he no longer have his property, identified in this suit, taxed with an ad valorem property tax for the purpose of free public education.
52. Equitable Relief – public school curriculum
The Plaintiff, Avery, seeks herein the conformance of free public education curriculum to the requirements of Article 7 Section 1 wherein the primary goal of education is to protect the life, liberty and possessions of the citizens by inculcation of the Principles of Property our nation and state was founded upon.
53. Abandonment of Claim regarding no Discretion
Plaintiff retains herein paragraphs numbered 1 through 16 as facts necessary for this suit and as argument showing the futility of manipulating tax rates to avoid an unlawful State ad valorem tax to fund free public education in Texas. However, Plaintiff abandons his pecuniary claims for want of discretion in the assessment for tax due in the year of 2005 discussed in paragraphs 14-16. This amount has not been determined but would be an amount that would be argued before the Guadalupe County Appraisal District in the neighborhood of 32 percent of what Plaintiff was charged. Plaintiff abandons this claim as it is barred by Texas Property Tax Code (TPTC) Chapter 41 as it cannot be brought to District Court without exhausting the administrative remedies available in the TPTC which Plaintiff did not pursue.
54. Retention of Claims for all Amounts Charged Plaintiff
The amount referred to in Paragraph 53 as non-discretionary is irrelevant to this suit as the Plaintiff claims also herein that all ad valorem tax on property in Texas for the purpose of free public education is unlawful and unconstitutional. Therefore the whole amount Plaintiff was charged for 2005, as well as all other years, remains a live claim in this petition.
WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED, Plaintiff prays that Plaintiff have judgment from DEFENDANTS, jointly and severally, in the amounts above prayed and for such other relief to which he may be entitled at law or in equity.
I, hereby certify that on the ____ day of ____________, 2007, the foregoing Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition was sent to Defendants counsel by certified mail return receipt requested as identified below:
7006 0810 0004 3827 2026
McCleary, Veselka, Bragg & Allen, P.C.
Attn: Kirk Swinney
7006 0810 0004 3827 2033
7006 0810 0004 3827 2040
100 N.E. Loop 410, Suite 1000
Attn: Joe A. De Los Santos
info@wabsa.com
www.wabsa.com
Phone 210/979-6633
Fax 210/979-7024
[2] No. 04-1144 Shirley Neeley, Texas Commissioner of Education, et al, APPELLANTS, v. West Orange-cove Consolidated Independent School District, et al., APPELLEES (Sup Ct 11/22/05) p 63
[3] Shirley Neeley, Texas Commissioner of Education, et al. v. West Orange-Cove Consolidated Independent School District, et al. Supreme Court Texas 04-1144 11/22/05 p. 110.
[4] Edgewood III, 826 S.W.2d at 503 cited at Neeley v. West-Orange-cove et al p. 105.
[5] Edgewood I, 777 S.W.2d at 399.
[6] Edgewood II, 804 S.W.2d at 498.
[7] Edgewood III,826 S.W.2d at 523.
[8] Neeley v. West-Orange-cove et al p. 114.
[9] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government 1689, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge University Press, 40TH West 20th Street, New Youk, NY 10011-4211, USA) 2ND T ¶ 4, 269
[10] Frederic Bastiat, The Law 1850, (Foundation for Economic Education, 30 South Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533, 1998) 2
[11] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government 1689, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge University Press, 40TH West 20th Street, New Youk, NY 10011-4211, USA) 2ND T ¶ 96 p 332
[12] John Locke, Two Treatises of Government 1689, ed. Peter Laslett (Cambridge University Press, 40TH West 20th Street, New Youk, NY 10011-4211, USA) 2ND T ¶ 135 p 357
[13] Frederic Bastiat, The Law 1850, (Foundation for Economic Education, 30 South Broadway, Irvington-on-Hudson, New York 10533, 1998) 2
[14] Samuel Adams Boston Gazette Jan. 9, 1769, ed. Verna M. Hall, The Christian History of the Constitution of the United States of America (Foundation for American Christian Education, Box 27035 San Francisco, CA 94127, 1978) 38.
[15] Smith, Adam 1727-1790, Wealth of Nations1776 (Prometheus Books 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228-2197 1991) 516
[16] Article 8 Section 17 Texas Constitution.