Cause No. 417-01458-2017
& 416-01458-2017
RYAN GALLAGHER §
IN DISTRICT COURT
§
v.
§
417/416TH JUDICIAL DISTRICT
§
COLLIN COUNTY
§
COLLIN COUNTY, TEXAS
Motion for Court Appointed Attorney
This is a Motion for a Court Appointed Attorney and for the Judge to Recuse Herself due to self interest in this Case which she failed to disclose, then covertly went forward signing Erroneous and even Fraudulent or Slanderous Documents regarding myself.
“The court agrees with the reasoning in Bollinger. Any amount above the rate at which Defendant’s counsel charged for legal services in this matter would result in a windfall for Defendant.” PRESTIGE LAND IRAN CO. v. HILTI, INC, 3:15-cv-03734 (NDTX 2018)
“The testimony drives the court to find as a fact, that unlawful and illegal sanctions were imposed. Such sanctions were being carried out.” Humble Oil Refining Co. v. Eighth Regional W.L.B. 56 F. Supp. 950 (N.D. Tex. 1944)
“The power to punish for contempt should only be exercised with cau-
tion.” Ex parte Arnold, 503 S.W.2d 529, 534 (Tex. Crim. App. 1974).
To be enforceable by coercive contempt the order must be clear and
unambiguous. Ex parte Chambers, 898 S.W.2d 257, 260 (Tex. 1995)
To be held accountable for contempt of court, the order, whether written
or oral, the judgment sought to be enforced must be clear, specific, and
unambiguous. Ex parte Slavin, 412 S.W.2d 43, 44 (Tex. 1967); Ex parte
Hodges, 625 S.W.2d 304, 306 (Tex. 1981); Ex parte Blasingame, 748
S.W.2d 444, 446 (Tex. 1988)
“Due process of law . . . in the prosecution of contempt, except
of that committed in open court, requires that the accused should
be advised of the charges and have a reasonable opportunity to
meet them by way of defense or explanation . . .this includes the
assistance of counsel, if requested, and the right to call witnesses
to give testimony . . .” Cooke, 45 Sup. Ct. at 395.
The right to appointed counsel if the alleged contemnor is
indigent, Tex. Fam. Code § 157.163(b), Ex parte Gunther, 758
S.W.2d 226, 227 (Tex. 1988)
Ample time to prepare and respond to the allegation, In re Oliver, 68 Sup. Ct. 499, 507 (1948), Ex parte Martin, 656 S.W.2d 443, 445 (Tex. Crim. App. 1982)
The right to a jury trial if the potential punishment exceeds
6 months in jail, Muniz v. Hoffman, 422 U.S. 454, 95 S. Ct.
2178, 2190 (1975), Ex parte Werblud, 536 S.W.2d 542, 546
(Tex. 1976)
Punishment exceeding six months’ incarceration entitles the contem-
nor to a jury, and the judge must advise the contemnor of the right to jury. Griffin, 682 S.W.2d at 262.
The court in Ex parte York, 899 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tex. App.—Waco
1995, no writ) held that “if confinement may exceed six months,” then the contempt offense is serious and constitutional safeguards (i.e., the right to a jury) should be given.
The ability to comply with the court order, Chambers, 898 S.W.2d at 261 (defense of inability must be shown by contemnor), In re Lausch, 177 S.W.3d 144, 155 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, no pet.)
Sec. 110.001. DEFINITIONS. (a) In this chapter:
(1) "Free exercise of religion" means an act or refusal to act that is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief. In determining whether an act or refusal to act is substantially motivated by sincere religious belief under this chapter, it is not necessary to determine that the act or refusal to act is motivated by a central part or central requirement of the person's sincere religious belief.
Sec. 110.002. APPLICATION. (a) This chapter applies to any ordinance, rule, order, decision, practice, or other exercise of governmental authority.
(b) This chapter applies to an act of a government agency, in the exercise of governmental authority, granting or refusing to grant a government benefit to an individual.
(c) This chapter applies to each law of this state unless the law is expressly made exempt from the application of this chapter by reference to this chapter.
There are various problems with the Motion put forward by the County, first of all they claim that the Lawsuit surrounding this was regarding Religious Violations in jail of not being allowed to bring Religious Texts to Trustee Jobs, and being told by one of the Preachers that in order to attend the Chrstian Church Services I had to be Christian, simply because I knew more about the Bible than the other inmates there who were Christian and he did not like it. So I would like Bob Davis to provide to the Court the Evidence that Marijuana was ever Requested. The Order of Sanctions is Erroneous in that is says that I can not file the same Claims in State or Federal Court against the County, yet never actually states a set of Claims that I have made. So the Sanctions to not actually fully exist, as they do not have a mooring in Reality.
Right to an Attorney
The County has requested a Sentencing of 6 Months and “Indefinitely until all Cases against the County have been Dismissed in State and Federal Court”, as well as a Fine of $500 per day until the Cases are Dismissed. I am Entitled to an Attorney in this situation.
Under Texas law, punishment of six months incarceration or less and a fine of $500 or less is considered a petty offense, insufficient to trig- ger the right to trial by jury. Werblud, 536 S.W.2d at 546.
Punishment exceeding six months’ incarceration entitles the contem- nor to a jury, and the judge must advise the contemnor of the right to jury. Griffin, 682 S.W.2d at 262.
At what point in the contempt proceeding the case is determined to be serious or petty is subject to conflicting authority. a. The court in Ex parte York, 899 S.W.2d 47, 49 (Tex. App.—Waco 1995, no writ) held that “if confinement may exceed six months,” then the contempt offense is serious and constitutional safe- guards (i.e., the right to a jury) should be given. b. However, the court in In re Brown, 114 S.W.3d 7, 11 (Tex. App.— Amarillo 2003, no writ) (citing Werblud, 536 S.W.2d at 546), held that the actual punishment imposed determines whether the character of the contempt is serious or petty.
Grievance System Records of Erroneous Order
Here is a fairly detailed list of the Records that I am talking about, which Bob Davis continues to lie about. I was able to make this list because Bob Davis did actually provide me the Records at one point and created this list at that time, but I have since become Homeless (for 3 years now) and no longer have a Copy of them and he refuses to send them to me in a PDF, and any time I Open Records Request the County for them, the simply refer the Open Records Request to Bob Davis, so I would like him to prove that I have ever once requested to use Marijuana during the time of my Incarceration:
Request # 37595, I asked to be allowed to attend Religious Services, and they said I could go to the Christian ones (even though I am not Christian) and I was ok with that.
Request # 42101, I was told by the Christian Priest that I was not allowed to attend Bible study because I was not Christian, and I spoke with the Programs director, Jamie Taylor, in person and she apologized and said that I could go to the Christian services.
Request # 42121, I point out that the Supreme Court has said that a Jail may have to incur expenses to accommodate Religion, as I was told I couldn't go to Christian services, and that they didn't have Hindu Religious texts, etc.
Request # 43154, I respond to the Program Director's Apology, as it came after the original request was sent
Request # 44481, I tell them how they can get other Hindus printed versions of the Rig Veda, so that they never have to tell anyone "We don't have your text" ever again (advice I am sure they ignored)
Request # 44803, I make the Staff aware that I will be spreading my faith, and having my own Religious services, and bringing my Holy Book with my everywhere, no different than the Christians.
Request # 46056, I am told I can no longer bring my Religious Text with me places, and am told I can only bring books approved by the Programs Director
Request # 46146, I am kicked out of the Inmate Worker Program because of my Religion, even after getting approval from the Program's director in person to bring my Religious text, and Christians were never not allowed during this whole time.
Erroneous Fee in Erroneous Order
The Court Ordered a fee of over $4,900 for the Attorney Costs in the Collin County Lawsuit, yet Bob Davis states in the request for Sanctions that he is attempting to basically nip this in the bud before it gets expensive. I would like him to prove that he has done over $4,900 worth of Work for the County, as of the time of the Sanctions being granted in 2017, and is not simply pulling that number out of his ass like everything else he says. Attorney’s fees range anywhere from $100-$250 per Hour, and an Attorney generally spends 8-10 Hours or so on a Case that has actually hearings and a Trails and everything, so there is no reason that his attorneys fees should have ever been set at $4,900+ for a Case which he claims he nipped in the bud.
Bias Self Interested Judge Ruling in her own Favor for this Case
Secondly, the Sanctions were made by a Bias Judge who ought to Recuse Herself and Withdraw any order and decisions made by herself in this Case. I am currently awaiting Financial Statements and Campaign Finance Records for the Texas Ethics Commission, but Here are the Facts as they are currently known by myself.
I filed the Civil Action in the Collin county District Court in 2017, and then could not appear, and was Sanctioned on the Grounds that I requested $2,000,000 and used News Paper Articles as part of my Prima Facie Evidence, and because my Religion involves Marijuana use (the Flesh of the Lord God Shiva). The Collin County Lawyer Bob Davis Continuously states that I requested to use Marijuana in jail, but I requested that I be allowed to take my Religious Text (the Rig Veda) to Trustee Jobs the same as the Christians. He has stated this in more than one Court and it is a Blatant lie.
But that is not the issue at hand. That Case, the Civil Case in which Sanctions were Granted and I was ordered to no longer file Claims for Religious Violations in Jail by Collin County, was by Judge Cynthia Wheless. Her Husband is the Founder of the Drug Court in Collin County, and as being such has a bias and is unable to see Marijuana as a Religious Sacrament (Sacred Food), rather than a "Drug" which we are not using it as. She may be able to put the Fact that ruling for me in her Case could destroy her Husbands Legacy out of her mind and rule fairly in my Case, but she did not disclose this information, and accepted a Contempt Hearing Motion recently still with no mention of this, and I am just learning all of this about the Whelesses and the Nowaks within the past 2 weeks.
21 U.S. Code § 321. Definitions; generally
"articles intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease in man or other animals; and (C) articles (other than food) intended to affect the structure or any function of the body of man or other animals"
When she Erroneously made her error I filed in the Federal Court, not understanding appeals processes at the time. I also did not realize that Cynthia Wheless was the Judge, as I was unable to appear, and upon searching the last name Wheless in Collin County found Ray Wheless, and filed the Federal Action against him, and Collin County, and Ken Paxton. The Judge that took the Case was Christine Nowak. On September 10th, 2019, just about 2 months from this instant filing you are reading, she dismissed the Case against Ken Paxton and Ray Wheless.
That same Month, Ray Wheless Retired as Collin County Judge, and appointed Christine Nowak's Husband, Tom Nowak, to replace him in the 366th Court. So the Federal Magistrate who decided that the District Court Judge's ruling was not Erroneous, without mentioning that her Husband was replacing him (I mistakenly thought it was Ray Whelesses order) dismissed the Case and within the same exact month, her Husband replaced the Defendant on the Bench at the whim of the Defendant.
So now, Cynthia Wheless, is still the Judge for the Contempt hearing which will occur January 23rd, and will be deciding if I should be held in contempt for filing a Case in Federal Court against her order, that was decided by the Wife (Chrinstine Nowak) of the Judge (Tom Nowak) who replaced her Husband (Ray Wheless) who founded the Collin County Drug Court. And all of this so far has happened within a 1 month period, and will happen within a 4 month period, as if they Dismissal was a payment for the Husband to be placed on the Bench.
These People have no business deciding any of my Cases at this point, and should probably be disbarred. This is completely and absolutely unethical.
TITLE 5. OPEN GOVERNMENT; ETHICS
SUBTITLE B. ETHICS
CHAPTER 572. PERSONAL FINANCIAL DISCLOSURE, STANDARDS OF CONDUCT, AND CONFLICT OF INTEREST
SUBCHAPTER A. GENERAL PROVISIONS
Sec. 572.001. POLICY; LEGISLATIVE INTENT. (a) It is the policy of this state that a state officer or state employee may not have a direct or indirect interest, including financial and other interests, or engage in a business transaction or professional activity, or incur any obligation of any nature that is in substantial conflict with the
proper discharge of the officer's or employee's duties in the public interest.
(b) To implement this policy and to strengthen the faith and confidence of the people of this state in state government, this chapter provides standards of conduct and disclosure requirements to be observed by persons owing a responsibility to the people and government of this state in the performance of their official duties.
(c) It is the intent of the legislature that this chapter serve not only as a guide for official conduct of those persons but also as a basis for discipline of those who refuse to abide by its terms.