To the Honorable Ron Paul, U. S. Congress
Now is the time to write the next chapter in your work The Republic. If I recall correctly, you ask, “Can we keep it?”
In a way we both have answers, neither satisfied nor satisfactory. We both learned constitutional guarantees mean nothing when weighed against money.
Once again Congressman I am being taken to court in Houston County. When I drove into that little county I was paranoid. I still see it as the
backwoods of Texas, where I do not trust the system, the lawyers, the judges, or those working for the state.
I remember it as the place where I was ambushed in a court with a fraudulent test and put before a supposed judge who had been brought before the
Judicial Ethics Commission the month prior.
I remember it as the place my son was taken from me violating judicial boundaries, and the rights of the citizen through the most inhumane, indecent,
and illegal actions that can be perpetrated against a citizen.
I remember it as the place where the lawyer threatened me over my child and where judge said, “If you don’t do as we say, I am going to bring
federal laws to bear on you.”
And I remember all those threats by my exe if I didn’t do what she said, “the lawyer and the judge are going to take my child and you’ll never
see him again.”
It is the place where I stood and watched another judge wipe the illegalities and the sins off the lawyer who proclaimed, “This man is not paying
child support,” even as he held in his hands the pay summaries showing that I was taking home about $75 a week after my child support was taken out.
I remember it as the place where it is easy to take a man to court, threaten him over his child, his freedom, take everything he has, throw him on the
street, and then laugh at him.
And then do it again.
I remember it as the place where I stood deaf in front of a judge, sanctioned, then ordered to defend myself, and finally thrown in jail with the
promise of a lawyer for a crime perpetrated by a supposed judge and fraudulent test by a lawyer.
I remember it as the place I spent 171 days before I got a Pro Se Writ of Habaeus Corpus in front of the federal courts in Lufkin when the judge's
promise of a lawyer was not kept.
I remember it as the place where then district attorney termed me malicious for stating the constitution, the above facts, and my numerous writing to
public officials detailing the failings of the Houston County justice system including the conditions of the jail.
It leaves one in fear that they could face the same mindset again.
As I have written before, I had no lawyer, was refused clean clothes, fed on $3.17 a day, no hot water, lived in an overcrowded facility under a leaky
roof, denied medical treatment or a pen to write the federal courts, while the Health and Safety Codes were kept in the jailers office to prevent the
inmates from knowing the inadequacies they were experiencing.
When one is put under those conditions how could they be called malicious for stating law and the constitution? I wonder what conclusions the Cindys
and the Bills and the Lynns would draw having been treated to the same.
These are burdens that change the way men see their country and horrors they take to the grave. I will never see the justice system as an honorable
attempt to resolve personal issues again.
Put me in Janet Reno’s circle. I agree we need a better class of citizen to become lawyer.
Put me Gloria Allred’s circle. I agree judges have to quit making social decisions.
Put my in Orin Hatch’s circle. I agree we have to find a way to take the money out of divorce so the Bill Pembertons and Lynn Markhams quit the
adversarial approach and find solutions.
Under the laws of America men like the lawyer adn the judge are no less guilty of kidnapping than any person who would act in a like manner. They
acted outside constitutional boundaries with disregard for Texas law, violating jurisdiction. And with this understood, we should realize even the
barbaric ideas of Hummarabi’s code seems sensible.
For what is it to a party to go into a court, lie, cheat, steal, breaking the very laws he is sworn to uphold knowing he has nothing at stake? Yet, if
he stood in the court of Hummarabi acting in a same manner he would leave in chains to be drawn and quartered.
In such light, it does make a difference when the supposed judge and lawyer have something at stake other than an amount of money. Those people who
willingly buy and sell our constitutional rights would come to the realization that law as a human endeavor is more necessary and much safer than law
by the dollar bill.
As for the idea of competition, if it were such, then it is a business and not an affirmation of the rights of the citizens to which is its intent.
Even so, in the competitive marketplace there are those whose integrity and honesty cannot be spoiled by the promise of money. Market competition does
not spoil the honest man like the title lawyer in some cases rots the idea of justice, warping the process in search of a way around the boundaries
protecting the citizen.
Law, after all, is written with clear thoughts and moral responsibility which makes its intent clear; that is, to protect the citizens. So why should
the courts ignore the citizens whose lives are most profoundly affected by the outcome, choosing instead to listen to skilled liars who argue only for
The law of this nation prescribes decent and humane ways to do any terrible task, if it must be done. But the person who is ambushed in a courtroom by
a lawyer and a supposed judge and mentally abused will take that day to his grave. There is nothing in my life that comes close to the horror played
to on August 20, 1998.
As Janet Reno writes of Gideon v. Wainwright we need a better class of citizen to become lawyer. We need people in positions to make decisions
demonstrating integrity, honesty, and have the willingness to evaluate the circumstances affecting the individual’s life.
Yet we have in these men persons who argue in their cleverness telling us what we feel, how we feel, and how we should think. And when we see through
that thinking we see how destructive their mindset and the courts can be.
Three times I have been in psychotherapy. And no therapist has made decisions so quickly as those in a courtroom. Thus, I am to conclude such
decisions are colored by money, or I must not know what a terrible criminal I am. In either case they judge me guilty by their cleverness and warped
thought, forgetting the constitution which assures all men certain unalienable rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness.
And that truth does not change by the amount of money put in one’s hand, or the lack thereof. Still there are those who change their mind and
reality by dollar bill, taking a horrid step into the dark side forgetting what law was meant to be; that is, the equalizing measures put in place
between men to ensure fair courts and fair trials for all Americans.
But some lawyers, those piddling little trophy hunters, hold fast to the idea they are only there to make an argument even where there is no honor in
just making an argument, neither before the court nor before God.
This is, of course, the reason our founding documents state clearly when men have no courts to hear them they are left to protect their rights and
liberties by arms. And it is the reason the Second Amendment remains the strongest measure we have as people; living, breathing human beings, to make
our own choices, not leaving them to those who know nothing of us, and refuse to hear the true circumstances of our lives.
Men died for these ideas. Twenty-four were lawyers who willingly gave their lives and the lives of their families to ensure, we as Americans, have the
right to question the laws, and as Janet Reno says, to make the necessary changes to ensure our system works to protect the rights of the individual.
Thus, law is not written with the intent of granting wishes, rather to determine what is suitable under given circumstances. Nor was it put in place
as that liars’ competition which it has become by those who get paid to argue, not with decency, or honorably, but by whatever means will achieve
their clients’ desires.
In this case, the lawyer's wish list crossed the boundaries depriving the other party of even the possibility of maintaining a life of minimal
In this case, his being ‘right’ meant my living on the streets, homeless and in poverty, in psychotherapy with bottles of pills to maintain my
sanity and physical ailments. It has meant continued counseling, more group therapy, and the inability to find, or maintain employment. The
continually process offers more of the same. Yet, the people who suffer can attest it is wrong.
Law is shredded; the constitution ignored while lawyers, like small children on a playground, push and shove and when someone gets hurt they claim
nobody did it. Yet do they not make their living by cause and effect?
So they must have some understanding.
Even I have enough psychotherapy to understand Bill Pemberton and Lynn Markham took the clock apart and now they wonder why it will not tick. They
took a bolt out of the engine on an airplane and now wonder why it crashed. They killed the mule and now wonder why they can not plow. And when you
try to explain, they throw the clock in the trash, bury the mule, and forget the human life in that airplane because they refuse to be the cause.
I have tried very hard to understand why they have done this. And eventually, I was left to wonder what excuse God will accept for such actions.
I was only doing my job?
It was the law?
It was his fault?
He should have?
He could have?
Unlike the courts where the judges rule everything is in the past, when we stand before God everything we have done will be in the past. And it will
be right, or it will be wrong. So do we say, “God that is all in the past?”
To the lawyer, to the judge, to the state, it may be the past but I live it every day. So it is not my past, it is my present, and it is my future.
Not a present or future of my choice but one thrust upon me, not by the system, but those who care nothing for the system aside from the amounts of
money and snippets of prestige they receive, those piddling little trophy hunters as Gerry Spense calls them..
Where the courts say it is in the past that does not make it so with God. For when one lives the result of an unjust and unwarranted destructive
verdict issued by a supposed judge and brought by a lawyer who filed a fraudulent test, it is not the past. Living it makes it the present.
And where the courts say it has nothing to do with the issue, they do not speak for God, nor do they speak for me. For when one is left in poverty and
on the streets without the ability to maintain a minimum lifestyle providing one’s self with those basic necessities of all life, it has everything
to do with the issue.
And where the courts expect one to forget God does not require it, nor can one forget living on the streets, put there not by his own actions but by
the actions of those acting without care or concern for the individual rights guaranteed by the constitution.
And finally I realize where the pastor says God will forgive does not make that so either.
It is true that if a man’s soul means nothing to him, your soul means less. And if a man cares nothing for his soul, he must think you care none for
In seven years of living this issue I have seen parents walk into courtrooms with an attorney and the indication to the court is they have more than
they are willing to admit.
And I have seen parents walk into a courtroom without an attorney and the indications to the court are they do not care enough to protect their
Let me not get reality confused with truth, but what about the man who can not afford an attorney? In seven years I have learned the fallacy.
When judges say, “You have not looked hard enough to find a lawyer.” Law is nothing more than a consumer product. Of course, the citizen has a
right not purchase a product that does not work, and to bring into courtroom the defects of it.
Still, the refusal to purchase cannot take away the guarantee of a fair trial provided for by the constitution. For the constitution does not require
a consumer to purchase anything, much less what he can not afford. Yet, the court is required to uphold the guarantee of a fair trial promised by it.
Maybe I have read too many law books but it is negligent to do otherwise.
Likewise, if the key to being legal is being paid, we need not bring any murder for hire to a courtroom. After all, the hit-man was only performing
the task he was paid to do. Thus if we fail to recognize law as nothing more than a consumer product then murder for hire is as legal as the
hit-men/lawyers who destroy the citizens under the pretense of only being there to make an argument.
It has been held continuously throughout the history of this nation that the most important thing a lawyer will ever do is protect the rights of the
citizens. Yet protecting the rights of one party does not equate to violating the rights of another.
To that end the State Supreme Court put a Code of Conduct for lawyers in place in November, 1989. I talked with the state bar about the violations
with regard to this case. They claim they are exempt from that code. Instead they have their own, which they sell. It reads like a law book,
confusing, confounding, nothing more than a barricade to anyone who has a met one of those, who the Supreme Court calls, minority of lawyers who do a
disservice to the citizens and consumers of the state.
I am an American. I am promised the right by the constitution to question the actions of that occurred on August 20, 1998 in the Houston County
Court-at-Law, overseen by this judges who was not sitting in a time of good behavior and where this lawyer put before the court a fraudulent test
Of course, they will not admit that, no more than they will admit they changed the transcripts omitting a great deal of that type of activity on the
supposed judge's ‘ruling’ these things were not before the court.
We will not read how judge pointed at a witness while she sat in the back of the court and allowed her to set an exchange point for my child, even
with the lawyer laughing, knowing there was no way I would be able to see my child because I had no transportation and knowing I would not be able to
pay any child support because my tools were on my truck sitting in Jeri Perdue’s driveway.
The stenographer assured me these would be in the transcripts. And when I asked why they were not, I was told the judge ruled none of it was before
That is a painful, pitiful, extremely warped idea of a courtroom, where lies predicated on hate and revenge were being offered as fact with the
understood knowledge that a man can not deny what he does not know. Thus he looks like a liar which is all that is truly necessary in the eyes of the
Congressman if I wanted to lie, I would not be saying the same things seven years after the fact. The truth has gotten no action and certainly a lie
would be more believable. Yet, I tell the truth because it is the truth. And it is this truth that keeps me from seeing my child and keeps me in
psychotherapy and on medications, in hopes that I will not eventually pick up a gun.
Such as it is kidnapping is the result of those actions by the lawyer and the judge, as well as my exe. They threatened me violating jurisdictional
boundaries and took my child. I can not see him. I cannot find him. And their ransom note says, “Pay a lawyer.”
Can these seemingly brightest of the bright not understand that once you have taken a jackhammer and torn up part of a highway we can not just run
over it with a steamroller and say, “There! We fixed it?”
I do not understand that thinking Congressman any more than I can understand why I am being taken back to court.
Yet times have changed in Houston County. And this time I have been appointed counsel. He has tough task. I sympathize with him because he has a
client who believes in the constitution and the protections guaranteed by it.
He has a client in psychotherapy and on pills trying to maintain some stability and sanity; a client who no longer can function as a normal person
because his life has been dramatically and destructively changed by a piddling little trophy hunter and a supposed judge in a small county courtroom
where his rights were taken away to have his child in his care in a county of his choosing without interference.
He has a client who was forced to get a divorce by a lawyer and supposed judge without the option of trying to work things out with his spouse.
He has a client who has tried to stay in contact with his child and yet has been hindered in the process by the custodial parent moving the child and
hanging up the telephone when the child has tried to tell the father where he was.
He has a client hindered by former district attorney who refused to take charges on the custodial parent.
He has a client who willingly made the effort to start an allotment for his child and was hindered by the state inasmuch as the state refused to
provide the necessary information to get that allotment started.
He has a client who does not understand how the state can ignore a man walked out of court without the ability to see his child, the tools or the
transportation necessary to get a job, and without any possibility of being able to pay child support. He has a client who realizes he was made a
criminal by that court.
He has a client who recognizes we can not go to Wal-Mart and buy a bolt to put the engine back on an airplane exclaiming, “There! Good as new!”
Sadly, he has client who recognizes the need for this matter to be brought before the federal court so that the necessary changes can be made to
ensure our system works in a manner that does not utilize the adversarial approach to divorce that leads to the disruption or the destruction of
either party or the children of any marriage.
He has a client who recognizes there are as many Pro Bono attorneys offering their services to the poor and homeless as there are pollsters asking the
beggars about disposable income.
On the other hand, he has a client who appreciates the precarious circumstances in which this man has been placed.
I was immediately impressed by this man. I like the enthusiasm, his personality, and I realize he is knowledgeable, extremely qualified, and too damn
likeable. So I find myself confused.
Personally there are many variables in this issue: the trauma, stress, distress, depression, poverty, homelessness, pills, psychologist, psychiatrist,
and the wonderful claim this is all for the child. But anyone who says that refuses to admit my child has had seven years of his life turned upside
And that leaves me to wonder if I do not push to get this matter into federal court to demonstrate how destructive this law can be, what will happen
to my child tomorrow?