Monthly Archives: June 2008

A Modern Bill of Attainder Case from Burnet County, Texas

 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

AUSTIN DIVISION

 

 

GEORGE PANGBORN                     §

                             Plaintiff                 §

                                                          §

vs.                             § CIVIL ACTION NO. A-08-CA-145-SS                                                            §

DAVID L. KITHILL,                         §

BILL NEVE,                                      §

RUSSELL GRAETER,                      §

RONNY HIBLER,                             §

JAMES OAKLEY,                             §

all in their personal and official         §

capacities,                                         §

and                                                    §

BURNET COUNTY, TEXAS,  and    §

BURNET COUNTY                          §

COMMISSIONERS COURT             §

By and through Burnet County Judge  §

Donna Klaeger,                                 §

                             Defendants            §

 

PLAINTIFF’S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT

 

          COMES NOW GEORGE PANGBORN, Plaintiff, and brings this, Plaintiff’s Original Complaint, showing the Court as follows:

 

PRELIMINARY STATEMENT

          This action primarily concerns a bill of attainder, a legislative finding of guilt without a trial.  (See Exhibit B.)  This bill of attainder was passed by the Burnet County Commissioners Court, a legislative body.  Plaintiff brings this action against the members of the Commissioners of the Court who voted for this unconstitutional bill of attainder, County Judge David L. Kithill, and the four Burnet County Commissioners, Bill Neve, Russell Graeter, Ronny Hibler, and James Oakley, and against Burnet County, Texas (hereinafter the “County”) and the Burnet County Commissioners Court as a body (hereinafter “BCCC” or “Commissioners Court”) (hereinafter collectively “Defendants”) because their actions unlawfully deprive Plaintiff of rights, privileges and property in violation of Article 1, Section 10 of the United States Constitution, the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the United States Constitution and they do so under color of state law.  Plaintiff is a United States citizen and a resident and property owner in Burnet County, Texas.

          In 1999 and 2000, Plaintiff purchased a total of 197 acres of property in Burnet County, Texas.  In 2001, Plaintiff gave notice that he was dividing 120 of the 197 acres into four 30-acre lots, such subdividing by Plaintiff being exempt from county subdivision platting regulations pursuant to the Texas Local Government Code §232.0015(f).   (See Exhibit A.)

On November 13, 2006, the Burnet County Commissioners Court (Kithill, Neve, Graeter, Hibler and Oakley) passed ordinance number 015098 (hereinafter “the ordinance”) (Exhibit B), stating that Plaintiff’s subdivided property in 2001 was in violation of Burnet County’s subdivision regulations.  The ordinance required the Burnet County Clerk to file a notice of non-compliance in the Burnet County Deed Records regarding Plaintiff’s property.  The ordinance also stated that the County would not issue building permits and sewer permits for the subdivided property.   As a result of Defendants’ ordinance and notice, Plaintiff has lost, and continues to lose, sales of his four 30-acre lots.  (See Exhibit C.)

          The ordinance and the notice of non-compliance by Defendants constitute a bill of attainder, a legislative act which declares a person guilty of a violation of law without trial. Such bills of attainder are specifically prohibited by Article I, Section 10 of the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 16 of the Texas Constitution.  The actions of Defendants also constitute a taking of private property without compensation and without due process in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments to the United States Constitution.  Defendant’s actions taken by state actors allegedly acting in their official capacity under color of state law were in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983 because said actions deprived Plaintiff of rights, privileges and property protected by the United States Constitution.

          Defendants’ actions also violate the Texas Constitution, Article I, §§13, 16 and 19, which guarantee compensation for taking of private property, due course of law and which prohibit bills of attainder.  Moreover, Burnet County’s taking of Plaintiff’s property violates the Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act, Texas Government Code, Chapter 2007.  Finally, Burnet County’s actions constitute a slander of title on Plaintiff’s property and tortious interference with Plaintiff’s prospective and existing contractual relationships.

I.

JURISDICTION

1.01             This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction to adjudicate this suit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 because this civil action is based on Defendant’s violation of Article I, § 10 of the United States Constitution.  This court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983 because Defendant, under color of law, deprived Plaintiff of his property rights in violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution.

1.02             This Court also has jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343 because the dispute involves a federal question of the violation of a federal civil rights statute and to redress the deprivation, under color of State law, statute, ordinance, regulation, custom or usage, of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States and by an Act of Congress providing for equal rights of citizens.  Plaintiff seeks to secure equitable or other relief under 42 U.S.C. §1988 providing for the protection of civil rights.

1.03             Further, this Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Federal Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§2201, et seq.  Plaintiff also states that this court has supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367. 

II.

VENUE

2.01             Venue is proper before this Court because the acts of Defendants here complained of all took place in Burnet County, Texas, and Burnet County, Texas is the primary place where Defendants’ business is conducted.  Burnet County is within the geographic jurisdiction of this Court. 

III.

PARTIES

3.01             Plaintiff is a United States citizen, as well as a resident and property owner, in Burnet County, Texas.

3.02             Defendant Burnet County is a political subdivision of the State of Texas and the Defendant Commissioners Court is the legislative body governing Defendant County.  The individual named defendants constitute the entire membership of the Commissioners Court at the time of the unanimously-approved unconstitutional bill of attainder.  The legislative issuance of policies and ordinances are the function of the Burnet County Commissioners Court.  Defendants Burnet County and the Burnet County Commissioners Court may be served with process by serving Donna Klaeger, County Judge, Courthouse-on-the-Square, 220 S. Pierce, Burnet, Texas 78611.  Individual Commissioners Bill Neve, Russell Graeter and Ronny Hibler may be served with process at their official place of business, Courthouse-on-the-Square, 220 S. Pierce, Burnet, Texas 78611.  Individual former County Judge David L. Kithill may be served with process at 2600 West FM 2147, Marble Falls, Texas 78654.  Individual former Commissioner James Oakley may be served with process at 56 Combs Alley Road, Spicewood, Texas 78669.

 

IV.

FACTS

4.01      On February 10, 1999, Plaintiff purchased two tracts of land totaling 107.23 acres in Burnet County.  On June 20, 2000, Plaintiff purchased an additional adjacent 90 acre tract of property in Burnet County, Texas.

4.02       On June 26, 2001, Plaintiff filed with the Burnet County Clerk his Notice of Filing of an Exempt Subdivision.  See attached Exhibit A, included herein by reference.  Plaintiff stated therein that he was consolidating two parcels after a platting correction by Defendants Burnet County and Burnet County Commissioners Court on June 25, 2001.

4.03       Further, Plaintiff designated 77.23 acres of his total 197 acres as state law exempt homestead property.  Plaintiff’s notice also indicated that he was dividing the remaining 120 of the 197 acres into four 30-acre lots.  Plaintiff’s lots are exempt from county subdivision regulations pursuant to the Texas Local Government Code §232.0015(f).  Section 232.0015(f)(1), last amended in 2003,  states:

A county may not require the owner of a tract of land located outside the limits of a municipality who divides the tract into two or more parts to have a plat of the subdivision prepared if . . . all of the lots of the subdivision are more than 10 acres in area; . . . (Emphasis added).  

4.04       On June 13, 2005, four years after Plaintiff filed his subdivision notice, Defendants issued an “Order Adopting Rules of Burnet County, Texas for On-Site Sewage Facilities.”  (Hereinafter, “the order.”) Section 10(A) of the Order specifically states:

Burnet County will permit and inspect all on-site systems regardless of the size of the tract of land the onsite system is situated upon.  With the rapid development of property occurring in the county and the abundance of streams, creeks and ponds, it is in the best interest for public health to ensure permitting and inspection of all on-site systems.

 

 

4.05        On November 13, 2006, Defendant Burnet County Commissioners Court unanimously approved ordinance No. 015098.  See attached Exhibit B, included herein by reference.  The ordinance states, in pertinent part:

 

A RESOLUTION NOTIFYING THE COUNTY CLERK THAT THE ABOVE DESCRIBED SUBDIVISION IS NOT IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE SUBDIVISION REGULATIONS OF THIS COUNTY.

 

WHEREAS, The Commissioner’s Court of Burnet County has adopted Subdivision Regulations, On-site Wastewater permitting procedures, and developmental requirements for Burnet County.

 

WHEREAS, There is a dispute between Mr. Pangborn and the County regarding the applicability of these regulations to this subdivision.

 

WHEREAS, This subdivision is not in compliance with these regulations.

 

Now therefore be it resolved by the Commissioners Court of Burnet County:

 

That the above described subdivision is not in compliance with the subdivision regulations and on site wastewater and building permits will not be issued for this land until in compliance.

 

Passed and Approved this 13th day of November 2006, by a 5 to 0 vote of the Burnet, Texas County Commissioners.

 

(emphasis added.)

 

4.06             The above-referenced ordinance required the Burnet County Clerk to file a notice of non-compliance in the Burnet County Deed Records regarding Plaintiff’s property.  Said notice was filed by the County Clerk.  Defendant gave no notice and held no hearing before declaring Plaintiff’s subdivision in violation of Defendants’ on-site wastewater regulation.  Moreover, Plaintiff has not installed any sewer or on-site wastewater system or built any buildings on any of those 30 acre lots.

4.07             As a result of Burnet County’s frivolous lawsuit, ordinance and notice, prospective purchasers decided not to buy Plaintiff’s subdivided lots.  Since the passage of the ordinance and consequent filing of Defendants’ notice, Plaintiff has lost, and continues to lose, sales of his four 30-acre lots.

4.08             On September 5, 2006, Burnet County filed suit in state court to enforce its subdivision regulations against Plaintiff.   Subsequently, Defendant Burnet County Commissioners Court rescinded its Ordinance against Plaintiff and Defendant Burnet County voluntarily dismissed its frivolous state court case.  However, Defendants continue to seek enforcement of said regulations against Plaintiff despite Plaintiff’s exempt status under law.  Plaintiff asserts that Defendants will repeat their actions to unlawfully impose their on-site wastewater regulations, and Defendants representatives have repeatedly reaffirmed their intention to do so.

 

V.

CAUSES OF ACTION

Unconstitutional Bill of Attainder

5.01             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Defendant BCCC’s adoption of its Ordinance No. 015098 constitutes a bill of attainder.  A bill of attainder is a legislative act that singles out one or more persons and imposes punishment on them, without benefit of trial.  Bills of attainder are specifically prohibited by the United States Constitution Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1.  (“No state shall . . . pass any bill of attainder . . .”)

5.02             The acts of Defendant BCCC, a legislative body, impose a judicial punishment exclusively on Plaintiff.  Plaintiff is the only person named in Defendant’s ordinance.  The ordinance describes Defendant BCCC’s judicial finding that Plaintiff is in violation of the law it enacted, i.e., “Subdivision Regulations, On-Site Wastewater permitting procedures, and developmental requirements for Burnet County.”  The ordinance further sets forth a judicial penalty—preemptively denying all permit applications for Plaintiffs property and thereby preventing sale or development of Plaintiffs property.

5.03             By ordering the County Clerk to place a notice of its finding, a numbered ordinance, in the Burnet County Deed Records, Defendant BCCC imposed its penalty by preventing the sale of Plaintiff’s property.  Further, Defendant BCCC punished Plaintiff by proclaiming in the ordinance that Burnet County will not issue building permits and on-site wastewater permits to any purchaser of Plaintiff’s property.

5.04             Plaintiff seeks a declaratory judgment finding that Defendant BCCC’s actions in passing the ordinance constitute the passage of an unconstitutional bill of attainder.  Further, Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against all Defendants invalidating the ordinance and preventing Defendant from taking similar future legislative and judicial actions against Plaintiff or Plaintiff’s property or refusing to issue, to Plaintiff or any purchaser or successor in interest of Plaintiff’s property, building permits and sewer permits.

 

Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment Violation

5.05             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Defendant BCCC’s adoption of the ordinance declaring Plaintiff in violation of Burnet County’s subdivision and wastewater regulations and imposing punishment without a trial constitutes a violation of the 5th and 14th Amendments of the United States Constitution. 

5.06             The 5th Amendment states: 

No person shall . . . be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation. 

 

5.07        The 14th Amendment states:

No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

 

5.08             Defendant BCCC, the legislative body governing the affairs of Defendant Burnet County, a political subdivision of the state of Texas, violated the 5th and 14th Amendments by enacting a bill of attainder and, thereby imposing punishment on Plaintiff without due process of law.  Plaintiff seeks invalidation of Defendants’ actions and injunction against similar future actions.

Violation of 42 U.S.C.§1983

5.09             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Under color of state law, Defendant BCCC, by adopting a legislative act that singles out Plaintiff for punishment without due process subjects or caused Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, to be subjected to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

5.10             For Plaintiff’s injury, Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.  Plaintiff seeks damages for lost income as a result of Defendants’ actions preventing him from selling his property.

 

Federal Declaratory Judgment

5.11             Plaintiff seeks a declaration of the law regarding Defendant BCCC’s adoption of a bill of attainder against Plaintiff, finding that such legislative adoption violates the United States Constitution Article I, Section 10, paragraph 1.

5.12             Plaintiff seeks a further declaration of law that Defendant BCCC’s legislative adoption of a bill of attainder deprived Plaintiff of his property without due process and was done under color of state law and subjected or caused Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, to be subjected to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States.

5.13             Plaintiff further seeks a further declaration of law that Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983. 

5.14             Plaintiff further seeks a further declaration of law that Plaintiff is entitled to damages for lost income as a result of Defendants’ actions preventing him from selling his property.

 

 

 

Permanent Injunction

5.15             Plaintiff seeks a permanent injunction against Defendants to prevent Defendants from imposing the punishments specified in the bill of attainder or any other punishments against Plaintiff that violate state or federal law.

 

Supplemental Jurisdiction          

5.15             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Plaintiffs invoke this Court’s supplemental jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1367 in the interest of judicial economy.

 

Violation of the Texas Constitution Article I, §16

5.16             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 and claims set forth in paragraphs 5.01 through 5.03 are included herein by reference.  Plaintiff asserts that the acts of Defendant BCCC violate the Bill of Rights of Texas Constitution Article I, §16.  This provision states:

There Shall Be No Bill of Attainder or ex Post Facto Laws.  No bill of attainder or ex post facto law, retroactive law, or any other law impairing the obligation of contracts.

5.17             As set forth above, Defendant BCCC’s Ordinance, which names and is strictly and solely applied to Plaintiff, is a bill of attainder.  As such, it violates the Texas Constitution. 

Violation of the Texas Constitution Article I, §§13 and 19

5.18             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Defendant BCCC’s adoption of the ordinance declaring Plaintiff in violation of its subdivision and wastewater regulations and imposing punishment without a trial constitutes a violation of the Texas Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution Article I, §§13 and 19.

5.19             Section 13, in pertinent part, states:

All courts shall be open, and every person for an injury done him, in his lands, goods, person or reputation, shall have remedy by due course of law. 

 

5.20             Section 19, in pertinent part, states:

No citizen of this State shall be deprived of life, liberty, property, privileges or immunities, or in any manner disfranchised, except by the due course of the law of the land.

 

5.21             Defendants’ adoption of the ordinance imposed punishment on Plaintiff, circumventing the due course of law by precluding the normal actions of the judicial courts.   The actions of Defendant also deprived Plaintiff of his property without due course of law in violation of these two Texas constitutional provisions by impeding Plaintiff’s sale of his property.  Plaintiff seeks invalidation by this court of Defendant’s actions and injunction against further unlawful enforcement by Defendant of its subdivision regulations and on-site wastewater regulations contrary to state law.

Violation of the Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act

5.22             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Upon information and belief, Plaintiff asserts that prior to Defendant BCCC’s adoption of its ordinance, Defendant BCCC failed to comply with the Texas Private Real Property Rights Preservation Act, Texas Government Code §2007.043 (hereinafter “PRPRP”).  Section 2007.043(a) states:

A governmental entity shall prepare a written takings impact assessment of a proposed governmental action described in Section 2007.003(a)(1) through (3) that complies with the evaluation guidelines developed by the attorney general under Section 2007.041 before the governmental entity provides the public notice required under Section 2007.042.

 

5.23             Section 2007.003(a)(1) of the PRPRP makes this statute applicable to Defendants’ ordinance (“This chapter applies only to the following governmental actions:(1)  the adoption or issuance of an ordinance, rule, regulatory requirement, resolution, policy, guideline, or similar measure;”).  5.24             Defendants failed to conduct a takings impact assessment as required by §2007.043(a)(1) prior to adoption of its ordinance against Plaintiff.  Further, Defendants failed to give the 30 day notice required by §2007.042(a)(1).  Plaintiff brings suit as authorized by §2007.044(b) to invalidate all actions of Defendants based on the lack of a takings impact assessment.

 

Slander of Title

5.25             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Defendants’ actions as described above constitute a slander of title on Plaintiff’s property.  Texas Local Government Code §232.0015(f) exempted Plaintiff’s property from Defendant’s subdivision regulation.  Defendants’ statement that Plaintiff subdivision was in violation of its regulations was false.  Defendants knew or recklessly disregarded the fact that its statement was false. Defendants’ false statements were maliciously made against property owned by Plaintiff causing specific damage to Plaintiff.

5.26             Plaintiff seeks recovery of specific damages in the amount of $300,000 against Defendants for the loss of income caused by Defendants’ slander of title of Plaintiff’s property.

 

Tortious Interference with Prospective Contractual Relations

5.27             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Defendants’ actions as described above constitute tortious interference with Plaintiff’s prospective and existing contractual relationship with prospective purchasers of his property.

5.28             Defendants willfully and intentionally acted to prevent Plaintiff from entering into contractual relationship with prospective purchasers of his property by adopting an ordinance falsely claiming that Plaintiff’s subdivision was unlawful, having the County Clerk post notice of same in the deed records, and declaring that they do refuse and will continue to refuse to issue building permits and sewer permits for the property.

5.29         As a result of Defendant’s actions, a prospective purchaser backed out of entering into a contractual relationship to purchase Plaintiff’s property.  (See Exhibit C.)  Plaintiff suffered actual damages caused by Defendants’ actions.

5.30             Plaintiff seeks actual damages in the amount of $300,000, exemplary, and punitive damages for the injury caused by Defendants.

 

State Declaratory Judgment

5.31             The facts set forth in paragraphs 4.01 through 4.08 are included herein by reference.  Pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §37.001 et. seq., Plaintiff seeks a declaration of the law that Defendant violated the Texas Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution Article I §16 by adopting a bill of attainder.  Plaintiff also seeks a declaration of the law that Defendant violated the Texas Bill of Rights, Texas Constitution Article I §§13 and 19 by imposing punishment on Plaintiff without access to the courts and without due course of law.

5.32             Plaintiff further seeks a declaration of the law that Defendants violated Texas Government Code Chapter 2007, PRPRP, by failing to conduct a takings impact assessment and provide notice of its actions as required by the statute.

5.33             Plaintiff further seeks a declaration of the law that Defendants’ actions constitute a slander of title on Plaintiff’s property and tortious interference with Plaintiff’s prospective contractual relations.

5.34        Plaintiff further seeks a declaration of the law that Defendants’ actions constitute an arbitrary and capricious denial of permits and plaintiff seeks an injunction requiring defendant not to arbitrarily or capriciously deny such permits to Plaintiff, his successors or assigns.

 

Damages

5.35             Plaintiff seeks $300,000 in damages for actual damages pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §§1983, 1988, and 28 U.S.C. §2202.  Plaintiff also seeks actual, exemplary, and punitive damages for slander of title to Plaintiff’s property and for tortious interference with Plaintiff’s prospective contractual relations.

Attorney’s Fees and Costs

5.36             Plaintiff seeks the recovery of attorney’s fees incurred in the pursuit of this action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1988(b).  Plaintiff also seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to Texas Government Code §2007.026(a) and §2007.044(c).  Further, Plaintiff seeks attorney’s fees pursuant to Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §37.009 and §38.001

5.37             Plaintiff also seeks recovery of its expenses and costs of court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1920 and Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code §37.009.

 

PRAYER

WHEREFORE PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiff prays the Court declare that Defendant BCCC’s adoption its ordinance against Plaintiff is a bill of attainder and that said bill of attainder violates the United States Constitution Article I, Section 9, paragraph 3 and the Texas Constitution, Article I, Section 16.

Plaintiff seeks a further declaration of law that Defendant BCCC’s adoption of said bill of attainder was done under color of state law and subjected or caused Plaintiff, a citizen of the United States, to be subjected to the deprivation of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws of the United States in violation of 42 U.S.C. §1983.  

Plaintiff further seeks a declaration of law that Defendants are liable to the Plaintiff in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress pursuant to 42 U.S.C. §1983.  Plaintiff further seeks a declaration of law that Plaintiff is entitled to damages for lost income as a result of Defendants’ actions preventing him from selling his property.

Plaintiff further prays this Court make a declaration of the law that Defendants violated Plaintiff’s state constitutional rights pursuant to Texas Constitution Article I §§ 13, 16, and 19.  Plaintiff also prays the Court make a declaration of law that Defendants violated Texas Government Code Chapter 2007, PRPRP, by failing to conduct a takings impact assessment and provide notice of its actions as required by the statute.

Plaintiff prays the Court issue a permanent injunction against Defendants invalidating the actions of Defendants described above and enjoining Defendants from taking similar future actions that violate the U.S. and Texas Constitutions, as well as federal and state law, including arbitrary or capricious denial of permits.

Plaintiff further prays this Court make a declaration of the law that Defendants’ actions constitute a slander of title on Plaintiff’s property and a tortious interference with Plaintiff’s prospective contractual relations.  Plaintiff prays the court award actual, exemplary, and punitive damages against Defendants for their actions against Plaintiff.

Plaintiff further prays this Court award attorney’s fees and costs of court pursuant to state and federal law set forth above.  Plaintiff further prays the Court grant such other and further relief, in law or in equity, which this honorable Court may find Plaintiff justly entitled.

 

                                                                   Respectfully Submitted,

 

                                                                   SMITH & ROGERS, P.C.

                                                                   P.O. Box 926

                                                                   Austin, Texas  78767

                                                                   Telephone:   512-923-6188

                                                                   Facsimile:    512-252-7257

                                                                   Email: DARogers@aol.com

 

 

 

 

                                                                   _____________________________

                                                                   David Rogers

                                                                   State Bar No. 24014089

                                                                   Attorney for Plaintiff

          Steven Wayne Smith

  

 

 

 

 

          Texas Bar No. 18685873

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The Disastrous Origin and History of State-Licensed Marriage in the USA

The rubbish heap of history is a merciless and very unpleasant place, but few segments of time and space in history have ever been consigned to that rubbish heap with greater glee and happiness than that which greeted the collapse of the Soviet Union and the final defeat (in Europe) of World Communism (the Eastern Front remains open, obviously, in China, North Korea, and Vietnam).  USSR, 1917-1991, RIP.  But who REALLY won the Cold War?  I have the distinct impression that World Communism simply took deeper and more lasting root in the West than in the East, due (ironically enough) to the complicity of Western Corporations and Governments in the destruction of the Family, Private, Property, and the Bourgeois, Constitutional State.  Attached here are two articles on marriage and divorce in the Soviet Union, and how we in the West copied them, and implemented their programs, more successfully than the Eastern Block ever managed to do….I am more grateful to Judy Parejko than she will ever know for sharing her extensive research and knowledge with me.  I am happy to make her results and opinions more widely available by their inclusion here, but all the credit is due her: “credit where credit is due.”  Judy’s research is epic-and-eye-opening.  ANYONE who wants to develop a case against the constitutionality (and political ugliness) of the Marriage License will necessarily start with the two articles included here and Judy’s unpublished research summary.

Beyond the Cave (Plato’s Republic, Book VII): Is Life a Dream?

La Vida es Sueño (Calderon de la Barca)

Sueña el rey que es rey, y vive
con este engaño mandando,
disponiendo y gobernando;
y este aplauso, que recibe
prestado, en el viento escribe, 5
y en cenizas le convierte
la muerte, ¡desdicha fuerte!
¿Que hay quien intente reinar,
viendo que ha de despertar
en el sueño de la muerte? 10

Sueña el rico en su riqueza,
que más cuidados le ofrece;
sueña el pobre que padece
su miseria y su pobreza;
sueña el que a medrar empieza, 15
sueña el que afana y pretende,
sueña el que agravia y ofende,
y en el mundo, en conclusión,
todos sueñan lo que son,
aunque ninguno lo entiende. 20

Yo sueño que estoy aquí
destas prisiones cargado,
y soñé que en otro estado
más lisonjero me vi.
¿Qué es la vida? Un frenesí. 25
¿Qué es la vida? Una ilusión,
una sombra, una ficción,
y el mayor bien es pequeño:
que toda la vida es sueño,
y los sueños, sueños son. 30

Beyond Good and Evil: Is Evil Destruction? Or is Evil the Acceptance and Failure to Deny Evil Things?

Ich bin der Geist, der stets verneint!
Und das mit Recht; denn alles, was entsteht,
Ist wert, daß es zugrunde geht;
Drum besser wär’s, daß nichts entstünde.
So ist denn alles, was ihr Sünde,
Zerstörung, kurz, das Böse nennt,
Mein eigentliches Element.
  I am the Spirit that denies!
And rightly too; for all that doth begin
Should rightly to destruction run;
‘Twere better then that nothing were begun.
Thus everything that you call Sin,
Destruction – in a word, as Evil represent-
That is my own, real element.