Steven J. Stringfellow v. Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section

ACCEPTED 15-25-00035-CV FIFTEENTH COURT OF APPEALS AUSTIN, TEXAS 4/4/20251 12:15 / 14 AM CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE 15-25-00035-CV CLERK ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ FILED IN 15th COURT OF APPEALS Texas Fifteenth Court of Appeals AUSTIN, TEXAS ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ 4/4/2025 12:15:10 AM Steven J Stringfellow Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section CHRISTOPHER A. PRINE 10160 Hwy 242 Asst. Atty. General Anthony Clerk Dolcefino Ste 800-4117 P.O. Box 12548, Capitol Station Conroe, TX 77385-4379 <~v~> Austin, Texas 78711-2548 (512) 571-2036 (512) 936-1327 [email protected] [email protected] ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Appellant's Brief ____________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

1. Table of Contents 1. Table of Contents (p.1) 2. Index of Authorities (p.2) 3. Statement of the Case (p.3) 4. Issues Presented (p.3) 5. Statement of Facts (p.5) 6. Summary of the Argument (p.8) 7. The Argument (p.8) / 14 2. Index of Authorities I. Article III Precedent Law for Recession's Caveat of Jurisdiction (recession's extenuation for secession's refederation higher under The Declaration of Independence and the 10th & 14th Amendments) p. 3, 4, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13

II. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 103 p. 5, 7, 8, 12

III. Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 105 p. 3, 4, 5

IV. Texas/Federal Rules of Evidence p. 4 / 14 3. Statement of the Case 3.1. This cause is a personal injury civil against the State suit for wrongful imprisonment of a sovereign civilian under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 103, seeking relief in the form of monetary compensation. The Defendant's Counsel had filed a plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss which was granted by the previous court leading to notice of appeal being filed, which was approved for this case. A motion of frivolous claim was also filed by the Plaintiff in this cause.

4. Issues Presented 4.1. The Great Recession has surely led to issues with respect to this cause. As stated in the original litigation, systemic issues within government had most likely caused the Plaintiff's application for compensation for wrongful imprisonment to become lost, either by the Post Office or by the Comptroller's Judiciary Section, impinged by the fact that law in Tex Civ Prac & Rem Code Ch 103 does not require applications to be sent via registered mail.

4.2. Recession at large though does imply that civilians be in caveat for progress in order to qualify for preference at any rate under the Article III precedent law for sovereign immunity, which was properly cited by the Appellant. Therefore, the law should have directly upheld the claims that there was an error on behalf of the State at some rate or level at least moreso considering, which was supported by other evidence / 14 showing other shortcomings of the Comptroller Judiciary Section with regard to an error with their email system. Other evidence has since added to this case from the general goings on and findings of the new administration, namely with respect to The Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) who have uncovered perhaps trillions upon trillions of dollars, implying that the aggregate of the theft would indicate a criminal violation from and against every single citizen due under democratic principles according to the amounts determining felony theft, also corroborating with recession being federal--with total debt now being greater than half of total assets.

4.3. Such massive undersight would at first seem to indicate a culture not just of corruption but also criminality in the United States, in turn coinciding with the Appellant's claims that recession's extenuation was being extenuatingly interpreted by members of the government to wit, in that recession's clause requites recession against recession in order to trigger secession's superluminal net-gains under the Article III precedent law for sovereign immunity (exhibit P.3 Sec 1.3.3), implying that citizens not in caveat not be relieved of civil actions taken against them and that citizens in caveat be given direct preference under recession's clause per civil rules of evidence, even if in extreme cases when such may entail governmental kamikazeing for the greatest federal action possible.

4.4. Government immunity, being one half of the precedent law as applied to citizens not in caveat versus government arbitrarily so by the sheer objective definition, / 14 had obviously aligned the caveat hitherto in stately recession before federal action became lawful, as would be evidenced by the Plaintiff's indice of such circumstance occurring, perhaps lending to the belief that recession was ultimately lawful due to most cases not being in caveat then, leading to crime which would fall outside of the precedent as we are seen now being uncovered by DOGE, etc. But the Appellee's claiming sovereign government immunity against a member of the people within sovereign caveat should be seen more primarily as due to federal recession's extenuation upon the extenuation to cannibalize all citizens indiscriminate to the caveat in order to generate higher reliefs for even greater parity...and in fact there may have been nary a case in caveat to even have been judged in favor of during stately recession to have given anyone a clue otherwise, in nature's serene way of being so perfectly federal...camouflaged almost.

5. Statement of Facts 5.1. The Appellant had sent in the application for compensation for wrongful imprisonment to the Defendant, Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section, meeting the criteria under Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code Chapter 103, as well as two changes of address notifications, to which no reply was received.

5.2. The Appellant attempted to contact the Comptroller Judiciary Section about the application in May 2025 via email, to which an error message was received, leading / 14 the Appellant to suspect that the application was not processed. The application may not have been received for a number of reasons, of which would of course coincide with recession in general, with there having been other similar goings on having occurred to the Appellant from recession in the people from a hacker clan as well as from apparent corruption in the government, which Appellant has learned are really most likely the same demographic just at different roles, whom I suspect have all been coordinating more acutely in recession, also being encouraged by such odd coincidental extenuation against progress not in caveat for secession in federal government, also compounded by the uniqueness of this first instance when recession had to occur if not for demonstration's purposes alone, bolstering crime by such apparent confusion otherwise...and they would have had plenty of time, power, ways and means through the known issues of technology and internet crime as well as other modern safeties, etc to organize and share information on preferred and/or threatening targets with regard in order to focus such crime upon. Appellant may have fallen under such victimization again in this cause, for these funds were higher and were almost guaranteed, and in fact it was caused by a previous issue caused specifically by such crime.

5.3. Then again, the application and the subsequent letters may not have been processed due to an error at the Defendant's office but perhaps at the Post Office, which also may have been caused by such mentioned crime or perhaps just recession, either of which would be more confirmed now by similar issues which are being address by / 14 DOGE, etc...of which have transpired during the processing of this case, in very much support any way around.

5.4. The complaint for this cause was filed in Travis District Civil Court where the State's Counsel was assigned to the case, who filed their plea to the jurisdiction and motion to dismiss based upon the argument of sovereign government immunity. That litigatory tactic seems to be a common from the State in the Appellant's experience, as the AG's office has cited sovereign immunity in other cases and it would seem that the courts have been approving this type of argument from them.

5.5. This case has in-effect come down to an argument based upon sovereign government immunity, and the Court should note the fact that such argument being litigated by the State has indeed confirmed that what was being alleged by the Appellant did in fact occur. This appellate matter should consist of arguments based upon the definition of and logic behind sovereign immunity which as mentioned may be seen as a device that has been adapted from an archaic english monarchial term reapplied to federal government with specificity to the mechanism of refederation (from secession), being implicit constitution in matter of time's federal state.

5.6. Due to there being no evidence from the State supporting their argument of sovereign immunity a frivolous motion complaint was filed due to it being moreso probable that members of the government have become pro-extenuated vai the modern / 14 definition of sovereignty, merely appearing as though it were the ancient chivalrous version exempting government in every case, as stated.

6. Summary of the Argument 6.1. Appellant basically argues that federal law in freedom under God is a technological apparatus to be employed by the people there of and for based upon intowards such logic in a manner which may be proven by mathelogical reasoning through deductive logic under order of operation...and that sovereign immunity is a precedent law under Article III which may fall in favor of the people or government in certain cases depending on whether or not the caveat is present, and that in this case the state has honored such through providing auxiliary relief through the motion for frivolous claim's being able to be approved.

7. The Argument 7.1. Presence of sovereign caveat would be simple to determine for people or government because the logic of federation would be indelible of and for the matter, with secession therein being the most efficient expression of refederation considering that the federal would be implicit, in that two is the only even prime over one, two and three being the only three sequential primes and also first three integers, with one's / 14 definition implying a second implicit entity and with those two being one more in three by two of one union by the matter of charge: past and future in/of present, proton and neutron in/of electron in jurisdiction of spacetime.

7.2. Secession's mechanism bears resemblance to inefficiency due to being post- efficient, just as -1 and 1 share the same absolute value though differ by two integrals.

In fact, secession's ability to manually rearrange states of matter is actually able to harness superluminal capability through the mind of man via quantum entanglement's quantum teleportation of information in order to make up for lost time that normal progress against recession would be inherently incapable of performing, by simply changing tact with respect to civil tort through judging in favor of the caveat...which means that those not in caveat for refederation via secession's net gains would be seen as having instigated such malfeasance at any rate, implying that government maintain due course untowards progress counterintuitively through recession's triggering of secession, with such logic being inherent to the matter of any and all matter, even when recession becomes federal.

7.3. In fact, when recession does become federal, when total national debt equals as much or greater than half of total assets (such as in our economic situation currently) the truest nature of a democratic republic may be derived, for obviously in such a state recession would be the majority, and so how else would such a nation be able to maintain existence if the courts did not judge against a majority recession yet / 14 also be able to fulfill democratic principles? The fact of the matter would be that the law would have to be as recessive as possible inthrough bearing the federal nature of the matter in time by being recessive against recession also by progress, which mirrors quantum law due to time's being positive inherently though yet with change also consisting of negative and positive charge in as one by the matter--meaning that recession would yet simply be able to be a type of superluminal state by and for progress in a zeroing absolution of integrity through the caveat of jurisdiction for sovereign immunity under recession’s extenuation also for progress in recession against recession too.

7.4. Affirming these goings on would be the consideration that when recession becomes federal, government may actually begin cannibalizing citizens irrespective to the caveat, for it would be implied that those in caveat would gain even more from extenuated reliefs duly, furthering the gap, and also allowing nature to take her course...at the same time. The fact that such otherwise disrespect would tend to appear as crime associating with recession would only serve to re-affirm such recessive legitimacy and also tend to suggest that those in government and of society not familiar with decency in law could not just be confused, yet but also tend to be confused at the same time by those forgetting that civility still must maintain the federal in kind a second time and again.

11 / 14 7.5. With the above being stated, the Defendant does have a constitutional right to claim sovereign government immunity though it should be well understood that any confusions otherwise as to why such as perhaps any claims of being less than competent or acceptable should be seen as less than appropriate, especially considering that Texas would be the foremost state in a union of government's highest form of technology now preeminent in the world in a most peculiar manner...and so one would be left with the assumption that the law has been following the higher path of caveat with respect due to such claims being federally frivolous and lawful at the same time, obviously towards eventually surrendering the highest relief towards the caveat vested in the people's government. Exhibit P.3 Sec 2.4.4.2 would further correlate with such argument, which basically posits that recessive states would not just impart their own extraneous energies but also goings on therein would compound, such as Thimerosal in the vaccines in our own situation, etc, etc...leaving no way out other than through the light.

7.6. Recession's being superluminal would serve as the final justification of such argument herein, due to any assumptions otherwise with respect to the Plaintiff tending to be able to be harnessed by federal mechanism towards ever more constitutional states of alliance, with the caveat aligning in the highest order notwithstanding inbetween therefore giving immunity under Article III precedent for sovereignty, with federal recession’s cannibal clause serving to retort all else towards the minority logic as it were mostly major, and felled by the fact that this first instance of secession is extenuating / 14 due to the need to cause recession for no other apparent reason in order to highlight crime that occurred in times before our government was ratified, which may seem long ago to us now but in a thousand years will seem like just the other day. How else would the precedent have aligned the caveat prior if not for by being judged in favor of somehow, even through disfavor by the matter's ability, in undeniable support?...with competency being inherently sovereign to the matter's entanglement with the being federal positive despite all, proving that a Court should obey the will of the caveat in the people moreso. If a minority will in the people may occur judgment in favor of the caveat against the majority, there should be no way to prove at least lawfully in a democratic fashion that any sort of majority opinion should be able to prevail against it, and with sovereignty actually being the definition of competency otherwise notwithstanding...leaving the above to be the better explanation, the extenuation upon the extenuation of the extenuation...perhaps cannibalizing us all until we allow the law to at the very least run its course if not for the sake of the trial alone.

7.7. Due to so many cases concurrently of the Plaintiff's and very little relief as of yet, there should be a marked constitution towards sacrificing the higher reliefs obtainable of just one or two of those cases so that the Plaintiff may have the funds necessary to obtain these types of higher reliefs from the other cases being protracted by the indelible logic of the state, by the hypocrisy...with the subject matter of those cases all being inherently more moot due to the caveat taking precedent ceteris paribus, / 14 meaning that the litigations thereunder are tending to be and will inevitably become about the same as time is one, and in fact those cases most likely will also be eventually conjoined, canceling out into the following request becoming more constitutional. As such, a simple request by the caveat resting in the people whom governmental technology in freedom serves should be enough to legally invoke to a civil court that judging in favor of would be the most lawful route.

7.8. Therefore, the Plaintiff hereby respectfully requests that the court retain that this litigation has stated that the caveat should be obeyed in this matter for the federal in us all.

7.9. This cause is very cut and dry, the State has confirmed that normally relief would be owed, in that if the Comptroller Judiciary Section had been operating normally that there would not have been an issue...though evermore considering that this case's impetus likely stems from external corruption from abusive members of society anyway from Austin and also the Dark Net, who most likely had been stalking the Plaintiff for some time via online gaming and simply had arranged certain officials to be bribed and then also had compromised State computer systems using supercomputer hacking technology (a simple feat).

7.10. This case should serve as a more appropriate case to align to for the caveat as litigated by law due to the logic in fact and of the current status quo, for it would be / 14 obvious by exhibit P.3 that there should be more to gain in net and very little time to do so. Thank you, thank you very much. ___________________________________________________________________________________ I, Plaintiff Steven J Stringfellow, hereby certify that all of the foregoing is true and correct under penalty of law.

Statefully Submitted,

03/29/2025 ___________________________________________ Dated: ______________

Steven J Stringfellow 10160 Hwy 242 Ste 800-4117 Conroe, TX 77385-4379 (512) 571-2036 [email protected] ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Certificate of Service _______________________________

I certify that a copy hereof has been furnished towards: Texas Comptroller Judiciary Section E. 17th St. Austin, TX 78711 (512) 936-5985 [email protected] [email protected] Texas Office of the Attorney General W. 15th Street Austin, TX 78701 (512) 463-2100 [email protected] [email protected]

Return service to: Steven J Stringfellow 10160 Hwy 242 Ste 800-4117 Conroe, TX 77385-4379 (512) 571-2036 [email protected] Automated Certificate of eService This automated certificate of service was created by the efiling system.

The filer served this document via email generated by the efiling system on the date and to the persons listed below. The rules governing certificates of service have not changed. Filers must still provide a certificate of service that complies with all applicable rules.

Envelope ID: 99272358 Filing Code Description: Brief Not Requesting Oral Argument Filing Description: Appellant's Brief Status as of 4/4/2025 7:00 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Atty General [email protected] 4/4/2025 12:15:10 AM SENT