Kimmell v. Burnet County Appraisal District

Citations: 835 S.W.2d 108; 1992 Tex. App. LEXIS 1928; 1992 WL 168531Docket: 3-91-482-CV

Court: Court of Appeals of Texas; June 3, 1992; Texas; State Appellate Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Paul W. Kimmell appealed a summary judgment from the Burnet County Appraisal District regarding ad valorem taxes. While the appeal was ongoing, Kimmell attempted to remove the case to the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas, filing multiple documents including a "Petition for Redress of Grievance and Notice of Removal." The appraisal district subsequently moved to dismiss the appeal, citing lack of prosecution or jurisdiction and sought damages under Texas appellate rules. Kimmell responded by attempting to transfer the appraisal district's motion to the common law court.

The Court of Appeals of Texas ruled that the Common Law Court for the Republic of Texas, if it ever existed, has not been operative since February 16, 1846. Kimmell's filings were deemed an abandonment of his appeal. Consequently, the appellate court granted the appraisal district's motion to dismiss for want of prosecution and awarded the district ten percent of the damages it received in the district court, concluding that Kimmell's appeal was taken for delay and lacked sufficient cause. The appeal was dismissed for want of prosecution.

Plaintiffs include Clayton Evans, Robert C. Wright, James R. Meyers, and various entities such as the Marble Falls Independent School District and the Burnet County Municipal Water District, represented by the law firm McCreary, Veleska, Bragg, and Allen, P.C. The action alleges that the Accused was arrested and jailed without due process, constituting an abuse of Texas law. Key grounds for relief include violations of jurisdictional immunities, the absence of common law jurisdiction in Texas courts, and the Accused's entitlement to redress under common law.

The Accused petitions the court for relief through: (1) a Notice of Removal, (2) acknowledgment of jurisdictional immunity and arbitration, and (3) enforcement of arbitration findings related to Docket 13,425. The Accused, Dr. P.W. Kimmell, affirms the accuracy of the information provided under penalty of perjury and is proceeding in forma pauperis.

An order was issued to remove the case to the Republic of Texas Common Law Court, directing the transfer of records from the State Court due to Kimmell's inability to pay court costs. The Notice of Removal states that Kimmell claims jurisdictional immunity, seeks arbitration, and asserts that he cannot be prosecuted in State Court without a common law jury trial.

The accused, P.W. Kimmell, submits a Notice of Removal to the Republic of Texas Common Law Court, requesting the transfer of the entire record and docket sheet of Docket No. 13,425 to their court and a temporary stay of proceedings in the 33rd Judicial District Court of Burnet County, Texas. This filing, dated March 29, 1992, includes certified mail notifications to the State District Court Clerk and the Plaintiffs’ law firm.

Kimmell asserts the following key points:

1. **Jurisdiction**: Claims original jurisdiction under the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, arguing for jurisdictional immunity to be resolved through arbitration.

2. **Venue**: Establishes that the actions occurred in Texas, asserting that he is neither a citizen of Texas nor the U.S., but a national of the Texas Republic operating under common law.

3. **Parties**: Describes the Plaintiffs/Appellees as corporate entities established under U.S. law.

4. **Nature of Action**: Accuses the Plaintiffs’ representatives of unlawful arrest and violation of due process, asserting a breach of Texas law.

5. **Grounds for Relief**: 
   - Claims violations of jurisdictional immunities due to improper arrest and incarceration.
   - Argues that Texas courts lack common law jurisdiction applicable to his case, leaving arbitration as the only remedy.
   - Asserts entitlement to redress of grievances under common law.

Kimmell requests the court to grant the petition for removal, order arbitration for jurisdictional immunity claims, and execute findings from the arbitration related to Case No. 03-91-00482-CV.

Verification of the document states that Dr. P.W. Kimmell affirms the truthfulness of the information under penalty of perjury as per U.S. law, dated May 7, 1992. Dr. Kimmell, representing himself, provides contact details and certifies that copies of the "Petition For Redress of Grievances and Motion For Removal and Notice of Hearing" were sent via U.S. Certified Mail to various parties, including attorneys and judges linked to the case. 

The document includes a notice of a scheduled hearing on May 28, 1992, regarding a motion to dismiss in the case of Burnet County Appraisal District v. Dr. Kimmell. It specifies that parties intending to appear should notify Arbitrator Richard Fuselier by May 15, 1992, for potential mediation or settlement. 

Additionally, the document introduces a motion to transfer proceedings, indicating that the Common Law Court of the Republic of Louisiana is merging with other Common Law Courts to establish the Common Law Court of the United States of America. This new court will have a broader judicial base for impartial judgments and will maintain a repository for Common Law decisions. The motion requests that all records and future filings be directed to the new court's address in Lafayette, Louisiana.

The Court orders that all records, files, and future filings regarding Burnet County Appraisal Case No: XX-XXXX-X be sent to the Common Law Court at a specified address in Lafayette, Louisiana. This order was issued on May 16, 1992. Dr. P.W. Kimmell argues that the district court erred in granting summary judgment, claiming the trial judge did not take an oath of office, he was not notified of the judge's assignment, and that other lawsuits with similar claims were pending. Notably, Kimmell does not contest the merits of the summary judgment itself. The document also recounts Texas's legal history, mentioning the adoption of English common law in 1840 and the transition to state governance after Texas joined the Union in 1845. It highlights that the Common Law Court of the Republic of Texas existed briefly between 1840 and 1846 and raises an inconsistency regarding the use of a ZIP code, which was established by the 1960s, questioning the document's authenticity.