SEVERAL UPDATES

I HAVE STANDING TO NOW ASK THE US SUPRREME COURT TO INTERVENE IN THE COB CASE

This week I will finish my filings with the Texas Supreme Court in order to allow Judge Olvera to issue a show cause order as to why they should not be held in contempt for issuing three orders in the case which is in federal court. 

I handed them on a silver platter a way out of this mess, and instead of correcting their actions they had the Chief Clerk rule [not allowed] that the three orders are not void.  They will get one more chance on Wednesday, and then I prepare the filing for Judge Olvera.

At that point one of two things will happen.  If Judge Olvera refuses to take action against the Texas Supreme Court, I will file an Application for Stay with the US Supreme Court with Justice Alito.

The last one I filed in 1993, stopped an Air Force court martial for 25 hours.  The issue of Marriage Equality is not an issue, but it is a claim which allows me to state retaliation.  Alito is hell bent on hearing any case which could open the door to review the Marriage Equality case.

Also, and something important to me, I will use former Chief Justice Rehnquist's standard for issuing a Stay at this stage.  The Democrats have been complaining the current Court has no standard for when they issue a stay.  I will give them the standard.

The case will be Wightman-Cervantes v. Texas Lone Star.  

THE CASE OF JOHN DOE

I am waiting for the Court of Criminal Appeals clerk to accept the Motion for Rehearing En Banc.  Because the Rule provides the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court authority to assign a tie breaking justice, the Rule allowed me to inform the Court of Criminal Appeals, that will not be an option and to explain the illegal conduct of the Texas Supreme Court.

On what I know to be an extremely long shot in asking the Supreme Court to help in the COB case, if they do help then right behind it while I have their attention I will file the Stay in the John Doe case.

MY HEALTH

My ears are a mess.  I never left the house yesterday because I could not drive due to the vertigo.  I did not really work yesterday.  I am very dizzy and nauseous.  After I finish breakfast, I will do my best to get done what I needs to get done.

AS A PRO SE IN FEDERAL COURT MY DEADLINES ARE EARLIER THAN THE LAWYERS- THIS IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL

I have asked for permission to E-File.  Judge Olvera has not given me permission to E--File.  This means I must be in the courthouse before 5 p.m., whereas the attorneys have until midnight to meet a deadline.  I will miss the deadline tomorrow because the mandatory filing will not be done until after 5 p.m.  It is a lot of work.

FROM THE BRIEF BEFORE THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT SHOWING, THEY VIOLATED THE JURISDICTION OF THE FEDERAL COURT

"Once the notice of removal is filed, and any subsequent state action is

absolutely void and coram non judice.  Feliciano, 589 U.S. at 64 (quoting Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485, 493 (1881), and Steamship Co. v. Tugman, 106 U.S. 118, 122 (1882)).”

                The law is so clear.  This court acted without jurisdiction to interfere with federal proceedings.  It was retaliation for Relator’s Motion to Recuse on the issue of LGBTQ+ rights.  For § 1983 purposes. immunity is no defense.  The court lacked any semblance of jurisdiction. The issue as to Justice Devine is unclear.  If he participated in the “Denied” ruling is subject to the federal contempt issue and possible obstruction of justice and civil rights violations. See, United States v. Lanier, 520 U.S. 259 (1997).  The notice appears to only show Justice Devine did not participate in the Motion to Recuse.

                This court has until March 9, 2026, to show cause why the referral to federal court is without merit and for Relator to consider same, or on March 10, 2026, the Show Cause will be filed with federal Judge Rolando Olvera.  It will be heard on March 17, 2026, during the pretrial hearing.

Under 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), the filing of a notice of removal immediately strips every state court, including appellate courts and the Texas Supreme Court, of jurisdiction over the case.  Once a removable case has been properly removed to federal court, the state court is left without any case, authority, or process, and its subsequent proceedings and judgments are absolutely void.  See Kern v. Huidekoper, 103 U.S. 485, 491-493 (1881).

The United States Supreme Court reaffirmed this principle in Roman Catholic Archdiocese of San Juan v. Acevedo-Feliciano, holding that all orders entered by a state court after the filing of a notice of removal are void because the case is no longer within that court’s jurisdiction.  589 U.S. 57, 63-64, 140 S. Ct. 696, 700 (2020).  This rule does not turn on the type of state proceeding or the procedural posture.  Federal law divests state jurisdiction categorically and instantaneously. 

Texas courts follow the same rule set by federal precedent. In In re Southwestern Bell Telephone Co., the Texas Supreme Court held that from the time a case is removed to federal court until it is remanded, “the state court is prohibited from taking further action.”  235 S.W.3d 619, 624–25 (Tex. 2007) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), which provides that the state court “shall proceed no further unless and until the case is remanded”).  This rule applies equally to the Texas Supreme Court itself."

I know when opposing counsel is trying to settle a case.  John Cowen is rejecting advice from Helen Scott.  They both will be remembered for the mess they created to avoid enforcing the code.