|
| |
Law Suits
FATHERS' MANIFESTO Home Page
Date: Sat, 09 Sep 95 14:19:33 CDT
From: Michael Idrogo
To: manifesto@christianparty.net
Subject: Child Support = INVOLUTARY SERVITUDE
CHILD SUPPORT = INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE
WHERE the 13th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States provides:
"Section 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude,
except as a punishment for crime, where of the party
shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the
United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction."
AND the 14th Amendment to the Constitution of the United
States provides: "No STATE shall deny of due process or
equal protection of the laws for citizens of states are
citizens of United States."
AND United States Code Title 42 Section 1983 provides:
"Every person who, under color of any statute, ordinance,
regulation, custom, or usage, or 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 rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the
Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party in an
action at law, suit in equity, or other proper proceeding
for redress."
=---------------------=
Involuntary servitude?
COURT ORDERED SUPPORT AIN'T "PUNISHMENT FOR CRIME"...
Since when has it become A CRIME to have children?
=---------------------=
A case has taken this question to the Texas Supreme Court.
Supreme Court of Texas
P.O. Box 12248
Austin, Texas 78711
(Write to the Texas Supreme Court and let 'em what you think!)
(Fax a copy to all of your TV, radio, & newspaper media.. )
(ask them to cover the issue.. CHILD SUPPORT = INVOLUNTARY )
(SERVITUDE.. write your editorial pages. )
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
ON FILE FOR PUBLIC RECORD:
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Case No. 95-0849
COA#: 04-95-00216-CV
TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
_______
MICHAEL IDROGO,
Petitioner
v.
WENDOLYN IDROGO Nee BOHN
aka WENDOLYN MARIE IDROGO, aka WENDOLYN M. IDROGO,
aka WENDY M. IDROGO, aka WENDY IDROGO,
aka WENDOLYN MARIE BOHN, aka WENDOLYN M. BOHN,
aka WENDY M. BOHN, aka WENDY BOHN,
aka Others Possible, (SS#271-74-8202),
Respondent
_______
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR
_______
Bexar County District Case No. 89CI05030
4th Judicial Circuit (Bexar County) Case No. 04-95-00216CV
_______
Michael Idrogo, Pro Se
(homeless; mailing address:)
317 West Rosewood Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78212
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(A): NAMES OF ALL PARTIES
MICHAEL IDROGO,
Petitioner
Michael Idrogo, Pro Se
(homeless; mailing address:)
317 West Rosewood Avenue
San Antonio, Texas 78212
v.
WENDOLYN IDROGO Nee BOHN
aka WENDOLYN MARIE IDROGO, aka WENDOLYN M. IDROGO,
aka WENDY M. IDROGO, aka WENDY IDROGO,
aka WENDOLYN MARIE BOHN, aka WENDOLYN M. BOHN,
aka WENDY M. BOHN, aka WENDY BOHN,
aka Others Possible, (SS#271-74-8202),
Respondent
WENDOLYN IDROGO Nee BOHN
(left Texas after con of Petitioner)
(US Justice Department review pending)
2535 Nordholme
Fort Wayne, Indiana 46805
ATTORNEY OF RECORD:
Marcelina Teveni
1222 North Main, Suite 420
San Antonio, Texas 78212
(210) 226-0851
BAR NO. 198145000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(B): TABLE OF CONTENTS AND INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
APPLICATION FOR WRIT OF ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT OF TEXAS
TABLE OF CONTENTS
NAMES OF ALL PARTIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
TABLE OF CONTENTS AND INDEX OF AUTHORITIES . . . . . 2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3
STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
POINTS OF ERROR . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
BRIEF OF THE ARGUMENT . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
PRAYER FOR RELIEF . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
CASES
Ex_parte_Wilson, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
114 U.S. 417, 5 S.Ct. 935, 29 L.Ed. 89
In_re_Slaughterhouse_Cases, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 69, 21 L.Ed. 394
McAfee_v._McAfee, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
152 T. 156, 255 S.W.2d 185, (1953)
McAfee_v._Shirley, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
140 S.W.2d 932 (Civ.App.1940)
Moore_v._East_Cleveland, . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 12
431 U.S. 494 (1977),
Robertson_v._Baldwin, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
165 U.S.275, 17 S.Ct.326, 41 L.Ed.715
Roe_v._Wade, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
410 U.S. 113 (1973)
Van_Hodge_v._State, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
149 Cr.R. 64, 191 S.W.2d 24, (1946)
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Zablocki_v._Redhail, . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9, 12
434 U.S. 374 (1978)
STATUTES
United States Constitution
Preamble to Bill of Rights . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
First Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
Ninth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Thirteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
Fourteenth Amendment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
Texas Constitution
Section Six (Freedom of Worship) . . . . . . . . . . . 12
(C): STATEMENT OF THE CASE
In November of 1988, Respondent Wendolyn Marie Idrogo,
(aka others), left Petitioner Michael Idrogo from the County
of Bexar, City of San Antonio, Texas. On attempts by
Petitioner Michael Idrogo to contact Respondent Wendolyn
Marie Idrogo; Respondent (or family) hung up the telephone.
Petitioner has been unable to see minor children since 1988
(even in contempt of Bexar County Court Order; Bexar County
District Case No. 89CI05030 - for which 6 months jail
sentence of Respondent Wendolyn Marie Idrogo has been
requested for each year that minor children have not been
seen by Petitioner Michael Idrogo). Respondent Wendolyn
Marie Idrogo did contact Petitioner Michael Idrogo's
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
employers with defamatory communication for which he believes
caused his loss of employment; he has not had a full-time
career job since November of 1990. In the meantime,
Respondent Wendolyn Marie Idrogo has had full-time
employment; has purchased a $50,000 home and a car.
Respondent Wendolyn Marie Idrogo has also had sexual affairs
in front of minor children and has even abused the minor
children; of which a couple of photos are available when she
was caught by surprise. Respondent Wendolyn Marie Idrogo has
also attempted to con a Courthouse in Indiana in this matter
and has also attempted to con others.
Petitioner Michael Idrogo has been unable to prosecute
because of expenses required and wherefore proceeds pro se.
Upon proceeding pro se however; he has come upon corruption
within the Bexar County Courthouses; if unable to get the
matter resolved.. the U.S. Justice Department will be asked
to proceed into this matter.
(D): STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION
Petitioner/Appellant's Motion for Rehearing was DENIED
by the Fourth Court of Appeals District on Wednesday 12 July
1995. The Texas Supreme Court's jurisdiction is invoked
under Rules 130-132, Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure,
Application for Writ of Error, Requisites, and Filing.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(E): POINTS OF ERROR
The Petitioner/appellant submitted an AFFIDAVIT OF
INABILITY TO PAY to the Bexar County District Court. The
(Court Reporter) CONTESTANT to the appellant's affidavit
NEVER showed by proof that the facts stated in the affidavit
are UNTRUE:
The contest to the affidavit is on the record (recording).
Petitioner/appellant provided documentary evidence including
a W-2 Form; contestant court officer NEVER showed by proof
that facts or documents were UNTRUE.
McAfee_v._Shirley (Civ.App.1940) 140 S.W.2d 932: "When an
appellant files affidavit stating that he is unable to pay
costs of appeal, or give security therefor, burden rests upon
one who CONTESTS affidavit, and he must not only file proper
contest, but upon a hearing of contest, he must introduce
evidence which is sufficient to overcome prima facie case
made by appellant when he filed affidavit." ..and this is the
proper way it should be UNLESS a "Kangaroo Court" is the
normal practice at the Bexar County Courthouse; i.e. the same
Court(house) gets to decide if someone can appeal against the
same Court(house)?!
ERROR: By the Bexar County Court(house).
Regardless of what the Court(houses) at Bexar County
attempt to do; the case (Bexar County District Case
No. 89CI05030) is UNCONSTITUTIONAL IN MANY ASPECTS;
the Texas Courts are aiding in the con by Respondent
Wendolyn Marie Idrogo; and must therefore be immediately
dismissed, abated, or withdrawn by the most expedient
means.
ERROR: By the Bexar County Court(house).
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(F): BRIEF OF THE ARGUMENT
I
This Case IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. State judges are bound
in Article VI, Section 2 of the United States Constitution:
Article VI. Sect. 2. "This Constitution, and the laws of
the United States which shall be made in pursuance thereof,
and all treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
authority of the United States, shall be the supreme law of
the land; and the judges in every State shall be bound
thereby, anything in the constitution or laws of any State to
the contrary notwithstanding.
State judges are under Oath "to support the Constitution
of the United States," Van_Hodge_v._State, (1946) 149 Cr.R.
64, 191 S.W. 2d 24. The Fourteenth Amendment enforces:
14th Amendment, Section 1. No State shall make or
enforce ANY law which shall abridge the privileges or
immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any
State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law, nor deny any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
II
The Case IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The cause does not adhere
to the following:
9th Amendment
The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall
not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the
people.
III
The Case IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL because it violates the "public
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
confidence" in government as required:
PREAMBLE
CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES;
Begun and held at the City of New York, on
Wednesday,
the 4th of March, 1789.
The conventions of a number of the States having, at the time
of their adopting the Constitution, expressed a desire, in
order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers, that
further declaratory and restrictive clauses should be added;
and as extending the ground of public confidence in the
government, will best insure the beneficent ends of its
institution;--
The BILL OF RIGHTS
As provided in the FIRST TEN
AMENDMENTS TO THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES
Effective December 15, 1791
Articles in addition to, and Amendment of the Constitution of
the United States of America, proposed by Congress, and
ratified by the Legislatures of the several States, pursuant
to the fifth Article of the original Constitution.
"Public confidence" which is required by all governments if
they are to survive; GOVERNMENTS are NOT perpetual:
Carthage .................... 850-146 B.C. 704 years
Rome ........................ 535-29 B.C. 506 years
Venice ...................... 600-1796 1196 years
Amalfi ...................... 900-1135 235 years
Iceland ..................... 928-1264 336 years
Genoa ....................... 1000-1802 802 years
Lombard Communes ............ 1183-1530 347 years
Free Cities of Germany ...... 1241-1630 389 years
The Netherlands ............. 1609-1805 196 years
Frankfort ................... 1630-1810 180 years
French Republic I ........... 1792-1804 12 years
Republic of Texas ........... 1836-1846 10 years
RELIGION is perpetual. The Religion of the Petitioner
is over 2000 years old; before that other Religions continue
today; and they will exist long after the State of Texas and
the United States are completely forgotten in old history
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(much like the nations listed above). This nations' fore-
fathers knew that.. that is why they wrote about "public
confidence," for the faster a government erodes its' "public
confidence," the quicker it too will disappear. Already the
U.S. Office of Management and Budget is (conservatively)
estimating the Federal government's deficit will be over 16
times what it is today for the year 2030; the government will
be hard-pressed to continue.
IV
The case IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. The First Amendment:
1st Amendment
".. NO LAW RESPECTING AN ESTABLISHMENT OF RELIGION, OR
PROHIBITING THE FREE EXERCISE THEREOF; or abridging the
freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the
people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government
for a redress of grievances."
I bring you a message from The Lord himself, "THIS IS A
TEMPLE OF GOD.. NOT A PLACE OF TRADE!" The Roman Catholic
Religion of Petitioner IDROGO requires "Indissolubility of
Marriage". In a quotation of The Holy Bible of the Roman
Catholic Church. The Marian Edition as published by The
Catholic Press, Inc.
"Marriage. Considered as a natural social institution,
marriage is a contract between a qualified man and woman by
which they freely yield to and accept from each other the
perpetual and exclusive right to the marital act. The
first purpose of this union is the begetting and education of
offspring; the mutual comfort and support of the spouses is
its secondary purpose. Marriage between Christians is a
sacrament, instituted by Christ, which increases sanctifying
grace and bestows special graces helpful in the married
state. The parties themselves are the ministers of the
sacrament, the form of the sacrament consisting of the mutual
consent to become husband and wife. The essential properties
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
of marriage are unity and indissolubility."
"Marriage, Indissolubility of. The natural law (its
secondary precepts) requires that marriage be indissoluble,
for only through a permanent union can the primary and
secondary ends of marriage be adequately attained.
The indissolubility of the marriage bond was affirmed by
Christ when He said: "What therefore God hath joined
together, let no man put asunder" (Matthew 19:6;Mark 10:9).
A consumated marriage between Christians can be broken only
by the death of one of the spouses. For Christian marriage
reproduces the perfect union between Christ and His Church
(Ephesians 5:32) and must be enduring as its prototype."
The case IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL; it is nothing less than
RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION! Petitioner IDROGO maintains a
Religious Belief within his heart, soul, and mind; it is
within his body; acts by government violate this privacy;
the Courts cannot allow the violation of privacy of plaintiff
IDROGO's belief, mind, and body under The Constitution while
ruling they can't invade privacy of the body in an abortion
case; doing so would overrule the Supreme Court's ruling on
Roe_v._Wade, 410, U.S. 113 (1973), a "fundamental right"
ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court and other "fundamental
rights": of family, Moore_v._East_Cleveland, 431 U.S. 494
(1977); and of Matrimony, Zablocki_v._Redhail, 434 U.S. 374
(1978), substantial interferences with that right will
therefore not be sustained merely because they are
"rational." FACT: Quoting Pope John Paul II (in Denver,
Sunday 15 August 1993), "The Family especially is under
attack." "Naturally the weakest members of society are the
most at risk. The unborn children, the sick, the handicapped,
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
the old, the poor and unemployed." As late as Monday 11 July
1994, the Holy See of the Roman Catholic Church, The Pope,
has issued instructions against the "divorce plague" and how
it "represents one of the greatest defeats of human
civilization" from the summer residence of Castello Gandolfo,
Italia.
The case also violates the Religious Freedom Restoration
Act PURSUANT to new statutory law;
United States Public Law 103-141:
Religious Freedom Restoration Act;
(Title 42 USC 2000)(107 STAT. 1488);
"APPLICABILITY IN GENERAL: This Act applies to ALL Federal
and State law, and the implementation of that law, whether
statutory or otherwise, and whether adopted before or after
the enactment of this Act."
"JUDICIAL RELIEF: A person whose religious exercise has been
burdened in violation of this section may assert that
violation as a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and
obtain appropriate relief against a government. Standing to
assert a claim or defense under this section shall be
governed by the general rules of standing under article III
of the Constitution of the United States:"
"Article III. Sect. 2. Para. 1"
"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and
equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the
United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made,
under their authority; to all cases affecting ambassadors,
other public ministers, and consuls; to all cases of
admiralty and maritime jurisdiction; to controversies to
which the United States shall be a party; to controversies
between two or more States, between a State and citizens of
another State, between citizens of different States, between
citizens of the same State claiming lands under grants of
different States, and between a State or the citizens
thereof, and foreign states, citizens, or subjects."
V
The case IS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. It is nothing less than
SLAVERY AND INVOLUNTARY SERVITUDE. It violates the 8th
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Amendment and the 13th Amendment:
8th Amendment
Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines
imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishment inflicted.
13th Amendment
Sect. 1. Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as
a punishment for crime, whereof the party shall have been
duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any
place subject to their jurisdiction.
Sect. 2. Congress shall have power to enforce this article by
appropriate legislation.
Since when has it become A CRIME to have children?
Appellant, Michael Idrogo, sought divorce "support"
payment reductions and appeals on basis of "involuntary
servitude"; compelled by force, coercion, or imprisonment,
and against his will, to labor for another, whether he is
paid or not; slavery, peonage, or compulsory labor for
debts; all of which are prohibited by the 13th Amendment,
U.S. Constitution -- which this Court has sworn to enforce.
Ex_parte_Wilson, 114 U.S. 417, 5 S.Ct. 935, 29 L.Ed. 89;
In_re_Slaughterhouse_Cases, 83 U.S. (16 Wall.) 69, 21 L.Ed.
394; Robertson_v._Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 17 S.Ct. 326, 41
L.Ed. 715. Court of Civil appeals has appellate
jurisdiction when case involves order modifying child
support, McAfee_v._McAfee (1953) 152 T. 156, 255 S.W.2d 185.
Appellant Michael Idrogo has sought modification of
"support" (involuntary servitude; unlawful) and dismissal,
(abatement or withdrawal) of divorce case. "The pleadings in
the case presented the issue of divorce, custody of minor
child, and the issue of support for said child. The issues
thus raised are severable" McAfee_v._McAfee, (1953) 152 T.
156, 255 S.W.2d 185. The "fundamental right of matrimony,"
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
United States Supreme Court, Zablocki_v._Redhail, 434 U.S.
374 (1978), is also violated while furthering of the
interests of the state's "divorce" agencies at the cost of
destruction of marital and family relations, a "fundamental
right," United States Supreme Court, Moore_v._East_Cleveland,
431 U.S. 494 (1977), the very basis of government and
civilization.
VI
The case violates Section Six of the Constitution of
Texas; violation of FREEDOM OF WORSHIP:
SEC. 6. FREEDOM OF WORSHIP. All men have a natural and
indefeasible right to worship Almighty God according to the
dictates of their own consciences. No man shall be compelled
to attend, erect or support any place of worship, or to
maintain any ministry against his consent. No human
authority ought, in any case whatever, to control or
interfere with the rights of conscience in matters of
religion, and no preference shall ever be given by law to any
religious society or mode of worship.
VII
The appellee has run an apparent "con" upon the
petitioner and there is official record of appellee's
attempts to do likewise to others..
VIII
The Court Clerk of Judge Garcia has perjured himself.
Pro Se petitioner has come upon corruption within the Bexar
County Courthouses.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
(G): PRAYER FOR RELIEF
AS A MATTER OF LAW:
Petitioner, Michael Idrogo, respectfully prays that a
Writ of Error issue to review the judgment and opinion of the
lower Courts Court of Bexar County conflicting previous
case law in violation of petitioner's Constitutional rights.
Prayer is made for ruling Bexar County District Court Case
No. 89CI05030 as UNCONSTITUTIONAL; therefore null and void,
to immediately dismiss, abate, or withdraw (by the most
expedient means); to order cessation of any other orders
arising from that case; and to order Respondent to return
all monetary funds received from this case to the Petitioner.
Prayer is additionally made for costs and all other fees to
be paid by the Respondent.
DATED: Wednesday 9 August 1995
Very Respectfully submitted
___________________________
Michael Idrogo, Pro Se
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I certify that a true copy of the above was served on
respondent/appellee in accordance with the Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure on ________________, 1995.
___________________________
Michael Idrogo, Pro Se
--
midrogo@alamo.net (Michael Idrogo)
ALAMO Internet -- +1 (210) 561-9815/21 -- San Antonio, Texas
FATHERS' MANIFESTO Home Page
| |
|
