Issuu on Google+

Local Rule Notice of and Assignment of Related Case in Original Proceedings As required by the Local Rules Relating to Assignment of Related Cases to and Transfers of Related Cases between the First and Fourteenth Courts of Appeals, I certify that the following related appeal or original proceeding has been previously filed in either the First or Fourteenth Court of Appeals: Caption: Trial court case number: Appellate court case number:

Patricia Potts vs. Crosby ISD; IN RE Patricia Potts

Caption:

PATRICIA POTTS vs. JIMMY WAYNE NEWCOMB; IN RE PATRICIA POTTS

Trial court case number: Appellate court case number:

  

#2006-65380 14-06-01051 and 14-07-00065-CV

AND

942,996 and 2011-51275 14-09-00875-CV and 14-11-00947-CV

________/s/_Patricia A. Potts_______________ [Signature of certifying attorney or pro se party]

_________February 20, 2011_______________ [Date]


CAUSE NO.___________

_____________________________________ IN THE FOURTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE STATE OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION _____________________________________

________________________________________ IN RE PATRICIA ANN POTTS ________________________________________

Submitted by: Patricia A. Potts, pro se P.O. Box 3453 Crosby, Texas 77532 (281)386-2187


IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL RELATOR PATRICIA A POTTS, pro se P.O. Box 3453 Crosby, Texas 77532 Ph. (281)386-2187 RESPONDENT HON. KEN WISE, Local Administrative Judge Administrative Office of the District Courts 1201 Franklin, Room 7040 Houston, Texas 77002 Ph. (713) 755-6575 Fax (713) 755-8973 (Relator is not aware of counsel for Judge Wise) REAL PARTY IN INTEREST: A. W., minor child of Relator and Real Party in Interest. Counsel for Minor Real Party in Interest:

Patricia A. Potts, pro se (Parent/Legal Guardian) P.O. Box 3453 Crosby, Texas 77532 (281)386-2187

REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: (State and County Agencies and Employees) GREG ABBOTT Office of the Attorney General of the State of Texas PO Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (Relator is not aware of counsel for Attorney General Abbott) Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST: (State and County Agencies and Employees)(cont.) CHRIS DANIEL Office of Harris County District Clerk 201 Caroline Houston, Texas 77002 (Relator is not aware of counsel for District Clerk Daniels)

VINCE RYAN Office of the Harris County Attorney 1019 Congress St Floor 15 Houston, Texas 77002-1799 (Relator is not aware of counsel for County Attorney Ryan)

PATRICIA LYKOS Office of the Harris County District Attorney 1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002-1923 (Relator is not aware of counsel for District Attorney Lykos)

CROSBY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT (Former Employer of Relator) Superintendent, Dr. Keith Moore 706 Runneburg Road Crosby, Texas 77532 (Relator is not aware of counsel for Mr. William)

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST (Defendants of Underlying Lawsuit) MARK LEHMAN, Phd (CONTRACTED STATE EMPLOYEE and Defendant of Lawsuit) Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, P.C. Steven J. Knight, Attorney for Mark Lehman, Phd 1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77002 Ph. (713) 658-1818 Fx. (713)658-2553 DEBRA HARVEY, MD De La Rosa & Chaumette Oscar L. De La Rosa, Attorney for Debra Harvey, MD 1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77046 Ph. (832) 485-5901 FX. (713)3950995 PATRICIA JANKI, MD Edwards & Associates Jim Edwards, Attorney for Patricia Janki, MD 12603 Southwest Freeway, Suite 200 Stafford, Texas 77477 Ph. (281)277-4940 Fx. (281)277-4974 Avinash Parti, MD Lorance & Thompson P.C. Larry D. Thompson, Attorney for Avinash Parti, MD 2900 North Loop West, Ste. 500 Houston, Texas 77092 Ph. (713)868-5560 Fx. (713)864-4671

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST (Defendants of Underlying Lawsuit) (cont.) Krishna Bhat, MD Sprott, Rigby, Newsom, Robbins, Lunceford & Bell, PC Joel Randal Sprott, Attorney for Krishna Bhat, MD 2211 Norfolk, Suite 1150 Houston, Texas 77098 Ph. (713)523-8338 Fx. (713)523-9422 Peter Stanfield, MD Peter Stanfield, pro se Occupational Healthcare 610 South Main Street Highland, Texas 77562 (281) 843-2441 Vatsala Bhaskaran, Phd Franklin, Cardwell & Jones Susan K. Cardwell, Attorney for Vatsala Bhaskaran, MD 1001 McKinney Street, 18th Floor Houston, Texas 77002-6417 Ph. (713)222-6025 Fx. (713)222-0938 Kingwood Pines Hospital Tribble Ross & Wagner Ryan Lee Clement, Attorney for Kingwood Pines Hospital 3355 W. Alabama, Suite 1200 Houston, Texas 77098 Ph. (713)622-0444 Fx. (713)622-0555 Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


REAL PARTIES IN INTEREST (Defendants of Underlying Lawsuit) (cont.) Humana Insurance Company Sheey, Ware & Pappas Raymond A. Neuer, Attorney for Humana Insurance Company 909 Fannin Street, Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77010 Ph. (713) 951-1000 Fx. (713) 951-1199

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


TABLE OF CONTENTS Identity of Parties and Counsel................................................................................ ii Index of Authorities................................................................................................viii Statement of the Case..............................................................................................ix Statement of Jurisdiction..........................................................................................x Issues Presented.......................................................................................................1 1. Order declaring Relator a “Vexatious Litigant” violates Relator’s constitutional rights because Relator was not served motion or notice of hearing for order, and Relator was prevented from attending Court and defending against declaration due to fraud, false arrest, and false imprisonment from Real Parties................................................................12 2. Real Parties have subjected Relator to blackballing, ongoing mental and physical assault of free speech retaliation, false defamation of Relator being mentally ill and/or incompetent, and repeated fraud upon court for over a decade.......................................................................................................13 3. Respondent local administrative judge abused his discretion and erred in denying Relator permission to file litigation against Real Parties. Local administrative judge’s denial of permission for Relator to file litigation against Real Parties infringes constitutional rights of Relator......................15 Statement of Facts....................................................................................................1 Argument................................................................................................................12 Prayer.....................................................................................................................16 Appendix.................................................................................................................20

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


INDEX OF AUTHORITIES Cases Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985) (orig. proc.)12 O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex.1992) (orig. proc.).....15 Ross v. Natl Center for the Employ. of the Disabled, 201 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.2006)..12 Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding)..................12 US Code 42 USC 1983............................................................................................................14 STATUTES Texas Family Code §102.001, 102.002, 102.003.....................................................14 Texas Code of Criminal Procedure 32(a)................................................................13 Texas Penal Code 37.10..........................................................................................14 Publicatons Dyer, Patrick J. "A Practical Guide to the Equitable Bill of Review. "Journal of Consumer & Commercial Law. 10.3 (Summer 2007): Print....................................13

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


STATEMENT OF THE CASE (1) Concise Description of the Nature of the Underlying Proceeding. This case arises from Respondent Judge’s denial of permission for Relator to file litigation against Real Parties for their ongoing retaliation and repeated fraud upon court perpetrated against Relator. In addition, Real Parties unlawfully conspired to obtain Order declaring Relator a “Vexatious Litigant” thru fraud upon court and false imprisonment. And Real Parties fraudulently obtained Order prohibiting Relator from filing any litigation in the State of Texas without prior order from a local administrative judge at the same time. Moreover, from 1999 to the present, Real Parties have blackballed Relator and subjected Relator to mental and physical assault of free speech retaliation, false defamation of mental illness, and employment & housing discrimination, in retaliation for Relator’s reports of their law violations. And Real Parties have caused Relator’s minor daughter to incur psychological injury from discrimination, loss of parent-child consortium, and repeated homelessness, etc. (2) RESPONDENT: HON. KEN WISE Local Administrative District Judge, Administrative Office of the District Courts, Harris County, Houston, Texas (3) Concise Description of the Respondent’s Action from Which the Relator Seeks Relief. Respondent Local Administrative District Judge denied Relator permission to file litigation. (4) If Writ of Habeas Corpus is Sought, a Statement Describing How and Where the Relator is Being Deprived of Liberty. N/A.

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


(5) If the Petition is Filed in the Supreme Court after a petition requesting the same relief was filed in the court of appeals. N/A. (A) Date petition was filed in Court of Appeals. October 28, 2011. (B) Court and Justices who participated in the decision. Justices FROST, Seymore, and Jamison. (C) Author of any Opinion for the court of appeals, and the author of any separate opinion. Kem Thompson Frost. (D) Citation to the court’s opinion. (Tex.App. Dist.14. 11/29/2011). (E) Disposition of the case by court of appeals, and the date of court of appeals' orders. Dismissed and Denied on November 29, 2011. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION This Court has jurisdiction over this original proceeding in accordance with Texas Government Code §22.221(b)(1), and Texas Constitution, art. 5, sec. 6.

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


ISSUES PRESENTED 1. Order declaring Relator a “Vexatious Litigant” violates Relator’s constitutional rights because Relator was not served motion or notice of hearing for order, and Relator was prevented from attending Court and defending against declaration due to fraud, false arrest, and false imprisonment from Real Parties. 2. Real Parties have subjected Relator to blackballing, ongoing mental and physical assault of free speech retaliation, false defamation of Relator being mentally ill and/or incompetent, and repeated fraud upon court for over a decade. 3. Respondent local administrative judge abused his discretion and erred in denying Relator permission to file litigation against Real Parties. Local administrative judge’s denial of permission for Relator to file litigation against Real Parties infringes constitutional rights of Relator. STATEMENT OF FACTS This statement of facts is supported by the Affidavit of pro se Relator (Patricia Potts) found in the Appendix. The following is a brief summary of the facts germane to the mandamus. Relator is a forty-nine year old African American woman and has been the single parent of her 15-year old daughter since birth.

From 1990 to 2008,

Relator’s parent and step-parent (Helen & Hayes Leonard) attempted fraud of having Relator declared “mentally incompetent” for the purpose of gaining control of Relator’s inheritance rights. During this time, the Leonards subjected Relator to fraudulent involuntary commitments and almost twenty (20) years of Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


false defamation that Relator was mentally ill “like her brother”. (Relator has a brother who has been diagnosed with Schizophrenia) After every fraudulent involuntary commitment of Relator, Relator was released without diagnosis or medication. And during her parent’s attempts at fraud, Relator attended college, obtained continuing license from the State of Texas to practice Vocational Nursing, engaged in full-time employment as a Staff Nurse, became married and divorced, and lived independently from her parents with her child. In short, false defamation concerning Relator supposedly having “Schizophrenia” was isolated to Relator’s parents only, who considered it unnecessary to have the support of a physician’s diagnosis. And Relator had never been diagnosed with Schizophrenia, or any other serious mental illness. After Relator’s divorce, Relator and minor daughter temporarily resided at the Star of Hope(SOH) Homeless Shelter in 1998 during which Relator responsibly attended school to become a Nurse and to support her child. While at the Star of Hope Shelter, Relator gave report of corruption and law violations committed by a Counselor-Facilitator (employed by SOH to facilitate government and charitable funds and assistance) and corrupt government employees.

Counselor-

Facilitator(M.E.) was previously a native of Nigeria, “the Corruption Capital of the world”. After Relator’s reports of M.E.’s law violations, M.E. began using her Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


knowledge of Relator’s personal family history and her contacts with corrupt government employees to blackball and retaliate against Relator, and to subject Relator to additional false defamation that Relator was mentally ill. And M.E. evicted Relator and child from SOH, after Relator refused to submit to repeated psychological evaluations and to withdraw from Nursing School. At the time, Relator was only four months away from graduation and Relator was warned by the psychologist who had just evaluated Relator that M.E. had contacted him (after results of evaluation) and had attempted to persuade him to diagnose Relator with a mental illness. And from 1999 to the present, M.E. and corrupt government employees retaliated against Relator (and her child) for Relator’s report of their law violations by discriminating against Relator within State Programs and by publishing continuing false defaming that Relator was “mentally ill”. And Relator has never been mentally ill. From 1999 to the present, (Real Party) Office of the Attorney General (“OAG”) retaliated against Relator and conspired with Relator’s ex-husband to deny and withhold needed child support and State Child Support Program services from Relator. On August 01, 2011, the OAG unfairly withheld lawful determination of the violation of Relator’s open record rights against District Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Clerk’s denials of access and tampering with government case file record of Relator’s Divorce. Then OAG retaliated against Relator for this exercise of her first amendment rights and purposely withheld Relator’s OAG enforced and collected Child Support from Relator from July to October of 2011, causing the repossession of Relator’s vehicle due to inability to make auto loan payments. When the OAG finally gave Relator her Child Support over two months later, Relator was unable to reclaim her vehicle because Relator could not afford repossession charges and late fees. (See Exhibits A thru H) In 2001, (Real Party) Crosby Independent School District (CISD) joined conspiracy to retaliate against Relator. Relator worked as a part-time contract employee of CISD from 2001 to 2007. In 2004, Relator was hired by CISD as a fulltime School Bus Driver. From 2001 to the present, CISD subjected Relator to ongoing

employment

discrimination

and

a

discriminatory

employment

termination in 2004. From October 2002 to January of 2003, (Real Party) Texas Department of Family & Protective Services (“TDFPS”) harassed Relator after TDFPS accepted false report of Child Neglect against Relator falsely reporting that Relator was neglecting her minor daughter due to Relator had been diagnosed with “Schizophrenia and was not taking medication. Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

(And Relator had not been Pg. 20


diagnosed with Schizophrenia and was never prescribed any medication.) Case worker purposely caused the loss of Relator’s employment by forcing Relator to attend interviews with Caseworker when Relator was supposed to be attending her employment. At the end of January, Caseworker informed Relator that Child Neglect investigation was completed and that Relator was cleared of charge of Neglect of her daughter. However, Caseworker continued to make appearances at Relator’s apartment unannounced, demanding interviews with Relator when Relator had to be leaving for her employment, and informing Relator that Relator was under “TDFPS Services”. When Relator complained and asked for proof of documentation or court order requiring Relator to participate in TDFPS Services, Caseworker became angry and threatened to take custody of Relator’s daughter. And on or about February 05, 2003, Relator (who had not received any documentation or notice regarding her rights or responsibilities regarding any “TDFPS Services”) refused to accommodate Caseworker and left to attend Relator’s employment. In February of 2003, Caseworker made good on her threats and (Real Parties) TDFPS and Harris County Attorney (“County Attorney”) conspired to defraud Relator of conservatorship of her minor daughter thru perjury and fraud upon court. From February 07, 2003 to February 25, 2003, TDFPS and County Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Attorney initiated and attended a series of Hearings regarding Relator in family court without providing Relator with any notice or summons. TDFPS invited Relator’s ex-husband and he did in fact attend these hearings. And during said hearings, TDFPS committed fraud and perjury by unlawfully obtaining default court orders for custody of Relator’s daughter, and for Relator to participate in “Services”, thru not serving Relator any summons or notice to attend Hearings while falsely informing Family Court Judge that Relator was unable to answer summons because Relator was mentally incompetent with Schizophrenia. And TDFPS and County Attorney falsely informed Judge that Relator’s daughter had been picked up by TDFPS and was in custody of TDFPS. But Relator’s daughter had not been picked up by TDFPS and was not in TDFPS custody. And Relator was unaware of Hearings and had no reason to attend Hearings because Relator was still in custody of her daughter and Relator had not received any notice to attend any Hearings. And on February 18, 2003, Relator received Motion (to modify and terminate her conservatorship and parental rights) and summons to attend Hearing scheduled for March 11, 2003.

But TDFPS and County Attorney

intentionally did not attach “Notice of February 25th Hearing” to Motion. On February 25, 2003, TDFPS and County Attorney attempted their final fraud upon court to obtain default order naming TDFPS sole managing conservator of Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Relator’s daughter. Again, TDFPS and County Attorney purposely failed to serve notice to Relator or to Relator’s attorney.

Again, these Real Parties falsely

informed Judge that Relator had been served notice, but was unable to attend Hearing because Relator was mentally incompetent.

During this Hearing,

Relator’s parents (who only wanted Relator determined mentally incompetent, and did not want Relator to lose custody of her daughter) interrupted proceeding to inform Judge (who had just signed default order giving sole managing conservatorship of Relator’s daughter to TDFPS) that Relator was not in attendance of Hearing because Relator had received no notice to attend Hearing. Thereafter, Judge canceled default order and denied “attachment” of Relator’s daughter to TDFPS. And when Relator and Relator’s Attorney appeared for March 11th Hearing, 257th Judge Motherall ordered psychological, psychiatric, and alcohol & drug evaluation of Relator from healthcare providers chosen by Judge. And when Relator submitted to evaluations and was not determined Incompetent (and/or diagnosed with Schizophrenia or Addiction) TDFPS and County Attorney abruptly abandoned suit and dismissed suit months later “without serving Relator any notice”. (See Exhibits I thru O)

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


From 2004 to the present, Relator filed multiple pro se civil lawsuits regarding ongoing retaliation from government employees because Relator could not obtain or afford an Attorney.

However, all Relator’s lawsuits were

unsuccessful due to continuing assault, obstruction, and tampering with Relator from Real Parties and Defendants of Relator’s lawsuits. On May 04, 2009, the Texas Board of Nursing (TBN) fraudulently obtained Default Order revoking Relator’s License to practice Nursing. The TBN did not request psychological examination of Relator. Instead, the TBN subjected Relator to 4-year investigation (from 2005 to 2009) and then revoked Relator’s Nursing License citing Relator’s inability to perform her job properly and “lack of fitness to safely practice Vocational Nursing due to psychiatric impairment”. Continuing retaliation from Real Parties had caused Relator’s job performance to suffer and Relator was unable to attend March 5th Hearing or to appeal order obtained due injury/impairment from Sleep Apnea and Sleep Deprivation (caused by Real Parties’ assault) and to lack of transportation caused by repeated unlawful towing of Relator’s automobile by Harris County Sheriffs and Constables. (See Exhibits P thru Q) From 2006 to 2009, (Real Parties) District Clerk and County Attorney conspired to obstruct Relator’s lawsuits with unlawful contest of Relator’s Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


affidavits of indigence. And District Clerk began unlawfully altering government (case file) records of Relator’s civil lawsuits, and of malicious prosecutions against Relator, to cover-up unlawful retaliation against Relator from government employees. (See Exhibits R thru S) On or about November of 2009, Relator again filed several civil lawsuits regarding ongoing retaliation against her from government employees. But from December 04, 2009 to June 25, 2010, Real Parties conspired to obstruct Relator’s lawsuits and to prevent Relator from filing any more lawsuits regarding retaliation against Relator. Real Parties unfairly had Relator arrested for her attempts to defend herself and minor daughter from retaliation and kept Relator in custody and incarcerated for over six (6) months without giving Relator a Trial, while Defendants of Relator’s lawsuits fraudulently obtained Orders declaring Relator a “vexatious litigant” and prohibiting Relator from filing any more lawsuits in the state of Texas without prior permission from a local administrative judge. Relator was incorrectly and unlawfully charged with “shattering windshield of (neighbor’s) auto”, however windshield was not shattered or even cracked when Relator was apprehended and taken to Harris County Jail. Relator had no one to bail her out, thus Relator remained incarcerated from December 2009 to June 2010. And to prevent discovery of ongoing retaliation against Relator thru a Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


public Trial, these Parties falsely diagnosed Relator with “Schizophrenia”, involuntarily committed Relator (during incarceration), assaulted Relator with forced administration of unwarranted and unneeded psychiatric medicine, and repeatedly falsely determined that Relator was “Incompetent to Proceed to Trial”, ultimately determining that Relator was “unlikely to be restored to mental competency”. And on June 08, 2010, District Attorney dismissed criminal charge against Relator, but kept Relator incarcerated an additional ten (10) days so that County Attorney could involuntarily commit Relator a 2nd time. Thus, Real Parties prevented Relator from appealing criminal and/or civil cases while Relator was kept in criminal and probate custody and/or incapacitated by unneeded psychiatric drugs.

And Relator had never used any drugs (other than anti-

hypertensives and vitamins) for any purpose ever in her entire life. And on or about June 25, 2010, County Attorney dismissed probate proceeding and released Relator from final custody of involuntary commitment. (See Exhibits T thru Z and Aa thru Gg) And from June 25, 2010 to September 22, 2010, the Texas Department of Public Safety and the Texas Department of State Health Services also unfairly prevented Relator from being able to drive in the state of Texas and from appealing “vexatious litigant” order. The state agencies revoked Relator’s driver Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


license and examined Relator for competency to drive, before determining that Relator was competent to maintain her Commercial Passenger Driver License on September 22, 2010. (See Exhibits Hh thru Kk) And from June 25, 2010 to about April 15, 2011, Relator’s Telephone (Public Utility) Provider conspired with retaliating government employees to unlawfully refuse/deny Relator’s applications for residential phone service. Public Utility’s denial of phone service to Relator contributed to Relator’s inability to appeal criminal case and civil order declaring Relator a “vexatious litigant”. On October 18, 2011, Relator submitted/filed complaint to the Texas Workforce Commission regarding employment discrimination and conspiracy to interfere with Relator’s employment rights from Real Parties and Relator’s former Employer, Crosby Independent School District. Complaint is presently pending completion of investigation by that agency. (See TWC complaint - Exhibit Ll) And from September 01, 2011 to the present, no matter what meritorious proof of Real Parties’ ongoing retaliation Relator presented to local administrative judge, Respondent Judge unfairly denied Relator permission to file litigation. Due to Real Parties complained of actions, Relator has suffered physical and psychological injury from continuing assault, impairment from Sleep Deprivation and Sleep Apnea, employment and housing discrimination and loss, repeated loss Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


of Relator’s automobiles, and repeated loss of Relator’s liberty and other constitutional rights. And Relator’s minor daughter has received psychological injury from discrimination, repeated homelessness, and loss of parental consortium, etc. ARGUMENT 1. Order declaring Relator a “Vexatious Litigant” violates Relator’s constitutional rights because Relator was not served motion or notice of hearing for order, and Relator was prevented from attending Court and defending against declaration due to fraud, false arrest, and false imprisonment from Real Parties. Mandamus relief is available only to correct a "clear abuse of discretion" when there is no adequate remedy by appeal. Walker v. Packer, 827 S.W.2d 833, 839 (Tex.1992) (orig.proceeding). "A trial court clearly abuses its discretion if it reaches a decision so arbitrary and unreasonable as to amount to a clear and prejudicial error of law.’”, Id (citing Johnson v. Fourth Court of Appeals, 700 S.W.2d 916, 917 (Tex.1985) (orig.proceeding)). Relator never received notice of Hearing or motion to declare Relator a “vexatious litigant”, therefore Relator had no duty to appear for Hearing or to respond to motion. As determined in Ross v. National Center for the Employment of the Disabled, 201 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.2006), “A party who has not been properly served has no duty to act, diligently or otherwise, and, therefore, cannot be negligent in failing to act.” “Only “extrinsic” Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


fraud may entitle the petitioner to relief thru bill of review”, Id (citing Dyer, 2007) Extrinsic Fraud is defined as “keeping a party away from Court” and “failure to serve a (party) without personal service in order to obtain a judgment against him without actual notice. “ (citing Dyer, 2007) Motion was mailed to Relator’s home address.

And Relator was falsely imprisoned during Hearing and service of

“Motion declaring Patricia Potts a Vexatious Litigant”. (See Exhibits T thru Gg) Therefore, Relator was never served. “Lack of Service violates constitutional due process. And if the (party) proves no service at all, the (matter) is concluded, The judgment must be set aside and a new trial Granted.”, Id (also citing Ross v. National Center for the Employment of the Disabled, 201 S.W.3d 694 (Tex.2006). 2. Real Parties have subjected Relator to blackballing, ongoing mental and physical assault of free speech retaliation, false defamation of Relator being mentally ill and/or incompetent, and repeated fraud upon court for over a decade. Real Party District Attorney violated Relator’s rights to a “Speedy Trial” pursuant to Texas Code of Criminal Procedure, Chapter 32(a). Chapter 32 (a) of Code of Criminal Procedure states “the trial of a criminal action against a defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of the action shall be given preference over trials of other criminal actions.” District Attorney did not give Relator’s case precedence and allowed innocent Relator to remain confined in Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Harris County Jail for over six (6) months without ever receiving trial or being convicted. Real Parties District Clerk and County Attorney obstructed Relator’s whistleblower lawsuit by unlawfully contesting Relator’s affidavit attesting to government entitlement. (See Exhibits R and S) And Real Parties County Attorney and District Clerk unlawfully “tampered with government case file record” by filing fraudulent “motion to modify conservatorship and to terminate” Relator’s parental rights in record of Relator’s closed Divorce case. Texas Penal Code 37.10 designates this as a criminal offense. Fraudulent Motion states that it is brought pursuant to Chapter 102 of Family Code. However, Chapter 102.001 and 102.002 of Family Code provide that a suit affecting parent child relationship may only be initiated as “an original suit begun with an original petition” and not as a Motion. (See Exhibit I and Chapter 102 of Family Code) And Real Party OAG purposely caused the repossession of Relator’s vehicle by withholding Relator’s OAGenforced Child Support from Relator for two months. (See Exhibits D thru H) Real Parties have retaliated against and falsely defamed Relator as being mentally ill and mentally incompetent for over twelve (12) years. While, Relator’s primary care physicians have only diagnosed Relator with physical injuries from Real Parties’ retaliation. And Relator has never been mentally ill or incompetent. Moreover, pursuant to 42 USC 1983, “Every person who, under color of any Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress...”. Thus, Relator is entitled to her right to “petition for redress of grievances”. 3. Respondent local administrative judge abused his discretion and erred in denying Relator permission to file litigation against Real Parties. Local administrative judge’s denial of permission for Relator to file litigation against Real Parties infringes constitutional rights of Relator. Relator is entitled to her right to petition for redress of grievances regarding Real Parties’ ongoing retaliation and violation of Relator’s rights. Respondent Judge Wise had a legal duty to grant Relator permission to file litigation regarding and/or against Real Parties. And Respondent Judge Wise has denied Relator’s written request to file meritorious litigation. (See complained of Order signed February 01, 2012) “Mandamus will issue when there is a legal duty to perform a nondiscretionary act~, a demand for performance, and a refusal to act. O’Connor v. First Court of Appeals, 837 S.W.2d 94, 96 (Tex.1992) (orig. proceeding) Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


PRAYER Relator seeks the following relief: A. A writ of mandamus vacating “Order declaring Relator a Vexatious Litigant”. B. A writ of mandamus compelling Respondent Judge Wise to issue Order vacating “Order declaring Relator a Vexatious Litigant”. C. A writ of mandamus compelling Respondent Judge Wise to issue Order granting Relator permission to file Bill of Review to vacate “Order declaring Relator a Vexatious Litigant”. D. A writ of mandamus compelling Respondent Judge Wise to issue Order granting Relator permission to file litigation for employment discrimination when authorized by Texas Workforce Commission. E. And such other and further relief as is just. Respectfully submitted, __/s/ Patricia Potts__________ Patricia A. Potts, pro se P. O. Box 3453 Crosby, Texas 77532 (281) 386-2187 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 28th day of February 2012, a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS was served on the following by hand delivery, telefax, and/or certified mail, return receipt requested: HON. KEN WISE, Local Administrative Judge Administrative Office of the District Courts 1201 Franklin, Room 7040 Houston, Texas 77002 Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Ph. (713) 755-6575 Fax (713) 755-8973 GREG ABBOTT Attorney General of the State of Texas PO Box 12548 Austin, Texas 78711-2548 CHRIS DANIEL Harris County District Clerk P.O. Box 4651 Houston, Texas 77210-4651 VINCE RYAN Harris County Attorney 1019 Congress St Floor 15 Houston, Texas 77002-1799 Fx (713) 755-8924 PATRICIA LYKOS Harris County District Attorney 1201 Franklin Street, Suite 600 Houston, Texas 77002-1923 CROSBY INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT Superintendent, Dr. Keith Moore 706 Runneburg Road Crosby, Texas 77532 Fx (281) 328-9208 MARK LEHMAN, Phd Chamberlain, Hrdlicka, White, Williams & Martin, P.C. Steven J. Knight, Attorney for Mark Lehman, Phd 1200 Smith Street, Suite 1400 Houston, Texas 77002 Ph. (713) 658-1818 Fx. (713)658-2553 Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


DEBRA HARVEY, MD De La Rosa & Chaumette Oscar L. De La Rosa, Attorney for Debra Harvey, MD 1330 Post Oak Boulevard, Suite 2250 Houston, Texas 77046 Ph. (832) 485-5901 FX. (713)3950995 PATRICIA JANKI, MD Edwards & Associates Jim Edwards, Attorney for Patricia Janki, MD 12603 Southwest Freeway, Suite 200 Stafford, Texas 77477 Ph. (281)277-4940 Fx. (281)277-4974 AVINASH, PARTI, MD Lorance & Thompson P.C. Larry D. Thompson, Attorney for Avinash Parti, MD 2900 North Loop West, Ste. 500 Houston, Texas 77092 Ph. (713)868-5560 Fx. (713)864-4671 Krishna Bhat, MD Sprott, Rigby, Newsom, Robbins, Lunceford & Bell, PC Joel Randal Sprott, Attorney for Krishna Bhat, MD 2211 Norfolk, Suite 1150 Houston, Texas 77098 Ph. (713)523-8338 Fx. (713)523-9422 Peter Stanfield, MD Peter Stanfield, pro se Occupational Healthcare 610 South Main Street Highland, Texas 77562 Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Vatsala Bhaskaran, Phd Franklin, Cardwell & Jones Susan K. Cardwell, Attorney for Vatsala Bhaskaran, MD 1001 McKinney Street, 18th Floor Houston, Texas 77002-6417 Ph. (713)222-6025 Fx. (713)222-0938 Kingwood Pines Hospital Tribble Ross & Wagner Ryan Lee Clement, Attorney for Kingwood Pines Hospital 3355 W. Alabama, Suite 1200 Houston, Texas 77098 Ph. (713)622-0444 Fx. (713)622-0555 Humana Insurance Company Sheey, Ware & Pappas Raymond A. Neuer, Attorney for Humana Insurance Company 909 Fannin Street, Suite 2500 Houston, Texas 77010 Ph. (713) 951-1000 Fx. (713) 951-1199 _____/S/ PATRICIA POTTS_________ Patricia A. Potts

APPENDIX TO THE PETITION FOR WRIT OF MANDAMUS 1. Letter and Order denying Request to file litigation, dated February 01, 2012 2. “Order declaring Patricia Potts a Vexatious Litigant and Requesting Security or Dismissal for Failure to Post Security” signed February 16, 2010 Exhibits: A. Open Record Request to District Clerk, dated May 21, 2011 B. Complaint to OAG re Clerk violation of the Public Info Act, dated July 19, 2011.. Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


C. OAG response to PIA complaint, dated August 01, 2011............... D. Complaint to OAG re Child Support being withheld, dated September 24, 2011 E. Webpage of blocked/closed Child Support Account, dated August 17, 2011... F. Child Support Account Statements for months of July thru October. G. Letter re Auto Repossession, dated September 09, 2011. H. Letter re Sale of Auto, dated November 18, 2011................................. I. “Motion to Modify Conserv., for Termination..”, filed February 10, 2003 J. Affidavit attached to “Motion to Modify Conservatorship...” K. “Order for Protection of a Child in an Emergency and Notice of Hearing”, signed February 11, 2003.............................. L. “Order for Participation in Services”, signed February 28, 2003....... M. Motion and Order for Nonsuit, signed August 07, 2003................ N. Printout of “Chronological Case History” of Case 1996-50567 O. Case File Docket of Case 1996-50567 P. SOAH Proposal for Order Revoking Nursing License(Case 507-08-2706) Q. SOAH Order Revoking Nursing License of Relator, signed June 09, 2010.. R. Affidavit of Indigence for Civil Case 2006-65380, filed October 02, 2006 S. Order sustaining Contest to Pauper’s Oath, filed November 03, 2009.... T. Original Petition for Lawsuit 2009-74161 filed November 17, 2009 U. Motion for Order declaring Relator a Vexatious Litigant” filed Jan. 25, 2010 V. “Order declaring Patricia Ann Potts a Vexatious Litigant” signed Feb. 16, 2010 W. Motion to Dismiss for Failure to Post Security filed March 18, 2010 X. Order Dismissing Lawsuit signed April 05, 2010 Y. Complaint for misdemeanor charge of “Criminal Mischief” filed 12/04/2009 Z. Case Reset Form for Cause 1645695 filed 12/11/2009 Aa. Case Reset Form for Cause 1645695 filed 02/12/2010 Bb. “Motion to Dismiss” for criminal cause 1645695 Cc. Order for Dismissal and Commitment Proc., signed June 08, 2010 Dd. Printout of Case Details for cause 1645695 from District Clerk website Ee. Notice of Conspiracy, Atty Malpractice & Frivolous Action filed 12/29/09 Ff. Harris County Jail Booking Record dated 12/04/2009 Gg. Harris County Jail Booking Record dated 06/07/2010 Hh. Medical History requested of DSHS Medical Advisory Board dated 07/21/10 Ii. Medical Progress Notes dated 07/23/2010 Jj. Medical Progress Notes dated 08/26/2010 Kk. Texas DPS Letter of reinstatement of CDL License dated 09/22/2010 Ll. TWC Employment Discrimination Charge signed and faxed 02/06/12 Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


42 USC 1983 Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance, regulation, custom, or usage, of any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding for redress, except that in any action brought against a judicial officer for an act or omission taken in such officer’s judicial capacity, injunctive relief shall not be granted unless a declaratory decree was violated or declaratory relief was unavailable. For the purposes of this section, any Act of Congress applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia shall be considered to be a statute of the District of Columbia. TEXAS FAMILY CODE, 102.001, 102.002 and 102.003 Section 102.001. SUIT AUTHORIZED: SCOPE OF SUIT. (a) A suit may be filed as provided in this title. (b) One or more matters covered by this title may be determined in the suit. The court, on its own motion, may require the parties to replead in order that any issue affecting the parent-child relationship may be determined in the suit. Section 102.002. COMMENCEMENT OF SUIT. An original suit begins by the filing of a petition as provided by this chapter. Section 102.003. GENERAL STANDING TO FILE SUIT. (a) An original suit may be filed at any time by: (1) a parent of the child; (2) the child through a representative authorized by the court; (3) a custodian or person having the right of visitation with or access to the child appointed by an order of a court of another state or country; (4) a guardian of the person or of the estate of the child; (5) a governmental entity; (6) an authorized agency; (7) a licensed child placing agency; (8) a man alleging himself to be the father of a child filing in accordance with Chapter 160, subject to the limitations of that chapter, but not otherwise;

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


(9) a person, other than a foster parent, who has had actual care, control, and possession of the child for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition; (10) a person designated as the managing conservator in a revoked or unrevoked affidavit of relinquishment under Chapter 161 or to whom consent to adoption has been given in writing under Chapter 162; (11) a person with whom the child and the child's guardian, managing conservator, or parent have resided for at least six months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition if the child's guardian, managing conservator, or parent is deceased at the time of the filing of the petition; (12) a person who is the foster parent of a child placed by the Department of Protective and Regulatory Services in the person's home for at least 12 months ending not more than 90 days preceding the date of the filing of the petition; (13) a person who is a relative of the child within the third degree by consanguinity, as determined by Chapter 573, Government Code, if the child's parents are deceased at the time of the filing of the petition; or (14) a person who has been named as a prospective adoptive parent of a child by a pregnant woman or the parent of the child, in a verified written statement to confer standing executed under Section 102.0035, regardless of whether the child has been born. (b) In computing the time necessary for standing under Subsections (a)(9), (11), and (12), the court may not require that the time be continuous and uninterrupted but shall consider the child's principal residence during the relevant time preceding the date of commencement of the suit. (c) Notwithstanding the time requirements of Subsection (a)(12), a person who is the foster parent of a child may file a suit to adopt a child for whom the person is providing foster care at any time after the person has been approved to adopt the child. The standing to file suit under this subsection applies only to the adoption of a child who is eligible to be adopted. TEXAS CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CHAPTER 32A. SPEEDY TRIAL Art. 32A.01. TRIAL PRIORITIES. Insofar as is practicable, the trial of a criminal action shall be given preference over trials of civil cases, and the trial of a criminal

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


action against a defendant who is detained in jail pending trial of the action shall be given preference over trials of other criminal actions. TEXAS PENAL CODE Sec. 37.10. TAMPERING WITH GOVERNMENTAL RECORD. (a) A person commits an offense if he: (1) knowingly makes a false entry in, or false alteration of, a governmental record; (2) makes, presents, or uses any record, document, or thing with knowledge of its falsity and with intent that it be taken as a genuine governmental record; (3) intentionally destroys, conceals, removes, or otherwise impairs the verity, legibility, or availability of a governmental record; (4) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with intent that it be used unlawfully; (5) makes, presents, or uses a governmental record with knowledge of its falsity; or (6) possesses, sells, or offers to sell a governmental record or a blank governmental record form with knowledge that it was obtained unlawfully. (b) It is an exception to the application of Subsection (a)(3) that the governmental record is destroyed pursuant to legal authorization or transferred under Section 441.204, Government Code. With regard to the destruction of a local government record, legal authorization includes compliance with the provisions of Subtitle C, Title 6, Local Government Code. (c)(1) Except as provided by Subdivisions (2), (3), and (4) and by Subsection (d), an offense under this section is a Class A misdemeanor unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a state jail felony. (2) An offense under this section is a felony of the third degree if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record was: (A) a public school record, report, or assessment instrument required under Chapter 39, Education Code, or was a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, letter of patent, or similar document issued by government, by another state, or by the United States, unless the actor's intent is to defraud or harm another, in which event the offense is a felony of the second degree; (B) a written report of a medical, chemical, toxicological, ballistic, or other expert examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action; or

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


(C) a written report of the certification, inspection, or maintenance record of an instrument, apparatus, implement, machine, or other similar device used in the course of an examination or test performed on physical evidence for the purpose of determining the connection or relevance of the evidence to a criminal action. (3) An offense under this section is a Class C misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a governmental record that is required for enrollment of a student in a school district and was used by the actor to establish the residency of the student. (4) An offense under this section is a Class B misdemeanor if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is a written appraisal filed with an appraisal review board under Section 41.43(a-1), Tax Code, that was performed by a person who had a contingency interest in the outcome of the appraisal review board hearing. (d) An offense under this section, if it is shown on the trial of the offense that the governmental record is described by Section 37.01(2)(D), is: (1) a Class B misdemeanor if the offense is committed under Subsection (a)(2) or Subsection (a)(5) and the defendant is convicted of presenting or using the record; (2) a felony of the third degree if the offense is committed under: (A) Subsection (a)(1), (3), (4), or (6); or (B) Subsection (a)(2) or (5) and the defendant is convicted of making the record; and (3) a felony of the second degree, notwithstanding Subdivisions (1) and (2), if the actor's intent in committing the offense was to defraud or harm another. (e) It is an affirmative defense to prosecution for possession under Subsection (a)(6) that the possession occurred in the actual discharge of official duties as a public servant. (f) It is a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(1), (a)(2), or (a)(5) that the false entry or false information could have no effect on the government's purpose for requiring the governmental record. (g) A person is presumed to intend to defraud or harm another if the person acts with respect to two or more of the same type of governmental records or blank governmental record forms and if each governmental record or blank governmental record form is a license, certificate, permit, seal, title, or similar document issued by government.

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


(h) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under Section 32.48 or 37.13, the actor may be prosecuted under any of those sections. (i) With the consent of the appropriate local county or district attorney, the attorney general has concurrent jurisdiction with that consenting local prosecutor to prosecute an offense under this section that involves the state Medicaid program. (j) It is not a defense to prosecution under Subsection (a)(2) that the record, document, or thing made, presented, or used displays or contains the statement "NOT A GOVERNMENT DOCUMENT" or another substantially similar statement intended to alert a person to the falsity of the record, document, or thing, unless the record, document, or thing displays the statement diagonally printed clearly and indelibly on both the front and back of the record, document, or thing in solid red capital letters at least one-fourth inch in height.

Original Petition for Writ of Mandamus

Pg. 20


PATRICIA A. POTTS