TO ALL THE REAL ESTATE PURCHASERS IN PORT ALTO:
If your Warrant Deeds were issued by Anita L. Koop, Terry J. Cox, and/or Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. after June 6, 1993, I bet your title is not only clouded but also fatally defective in that Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. had been factually and legally non-existent since that date when its Assumed Name Certificate expired.
Any Warranty Deeds you obtained from these fraudsters were, are, have been, and will always be merely a few pieces of wastepaper not worth the ink printed on them. Consult a real estate attorney to see if you can refute my allegations, which are absolutely grounded on facts and law. Otherwise, I am just a small citizen, how dare I fight openly against those who have wronged me despite their judicial powers, official positions, social networks, or political connections? In 2010 they tried incarceration in vain!
To believe in a just law of cause and effect, carrying with it a punishment or a reward, is to believe in righteousness. —Ernest Holmes
Why do I keep blogging and keep attacking those poor, helpless, defenseless officers of the court?
Because “when truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie,” said Yevgeny Yevtushenko, a Russian friend of mine!
To avoid being labelled LIARS, shouldn’t they break the dead silence and let the world know the TRUTH?
Assumed Name Status of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc.
1. On September 15, 1989, I spent approximately one million dollars pulling the Defendants Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. (ARPI), Terry J. Cox and Anita L. Koop out of bankruptcy.
2. On July 2, 1996, they fooled me into bankruptcy by conducting wrongful foreclosure, obtaining fraudulent deficiency judgment, filing false claims, and taking away properties belonging, not to me, but to the Taiwanese owners.
3. The unlawfully auctioned waterfront lots and land are not just real property, they also mean the victims’ life savings, their lives and liberties to own property protected by our Constitution.
4. On 3/30/2011, the Texas Secretary of State’s Office issued an ASSUMED NAME CERTIFICATE OF ANITA’S RESORT PROPERTIES, INC., confirming that the CERTIFICATE expired on June 6, 1993 and no renewal has ever been applied for. (See EXHIBIT #1 Assumed Name Status of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. Expiration of Assumed Name Certificate and Standing to Sue)
5. Consequently, all the legal actions taken and ORDERS or JUDGMENTS obtained by the factually and legally non-existent corporation against me are VOID since June 6, 1993.
6. They must be set aside in the interest of justice, and compensatory/punitive damages must be awarded by an impartial jury panel.
7. Rule 28 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure provides that an entity or individual doing business under an assumed name may sue or be sued in that assumed name. TEX. R. CIV. P. 28.
8. The Assumed Business or Professional Name Act provides penalties for failing to file a certificate. A company’s failure to comply with the Act does not impair the validity of any contract, but that company is prohibited from maintaining an action in a Texas court arising out of a contract or act in which an assumed name was used until an assumed name certificate has been filed. Act of May 23, 1977, 65th Leg., R.S., ch. 403, § 1, 1977 Tex. Gen. Laws 1095, 1100-01, repealed by Act of May 15, 2007, 80th Leg., R.S., ch. 885, § 2.01, 2007 Tex. Gen. Laws 1905, 1935 (current version at TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE ANN. § 71.201 (Vernon 2009)).
9. As a result of the expiration of the Assumed Name Status, Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. has no actual or legal existence. See Bailey v. Vanscot Concrete Co., 894 S.W.2d 759 (Tex. 1995).
10. Civil suits may be maintained only by or against parties having an actual or legal existence. Id. Accordingly, Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. was not a proper party to the suit and judgment cannot be rendered in its favor. See id.
11. While there was no valid assumed name certificate on file for Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. on the date (7/2/1996) when the foreclosure took place or when the “PLAINTIF’S ORIGINAL PETITION FOR DEFICIENCY JUDGMENT FOLLOWING FORECLOSURE OF DEED OF TRUST” was filed in 1996, Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. was prohibited by the Assumed Business or Professional Name Act from maintaining an action in a Texas court arising out of a contract or act in which an assumed name was used until an assumed name certificate had been filed.
12. Parties to a suit, including plaintiffs, are just as effectively dismissed from a suit by omitting their names from an amended pleading as where a formal order of dismissal is entered. Mercure Co., N.V. v. Rowland, 715 S.W.2d 677, 679 (Tex. App. – Houston [1st Dist.] 1986, writ ref’d n.r.e.).
13. Standing is a component of subject matter jurisdiction and cannot be waived. Tex. Ass’n of Bus. v. Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d 440, 445 (Tex. 1993).
14. Standing limits subject matter jurisdiction to cases involving a distinct injury to the plaintiff and a real controversy between the parties that will be actually determined by the judicial declaration sought. Austin Nursing Ctr., Inc. v. Lovato, 171 S.W.3d 845, 849 (Tex. 2005).
15. In reviewing standing on appeal, we construe the petition in favor of the petitioner, and if necessary, review the entire record to determine if any evidence supports standing. See Tex. Air Control Bd., 852 S.W.2d at 446.
16. We review a challenge to a party’s standing, as well as a challenge to the trial court’s conclusions of law, de novo. Tex. Dep’t of Transp. v. City of Sunset Valley, 146 S.W.3d 637, 646 (Tex. 2004); Richardson Indep. Sch. Dist. v. GE Capital Corp., 58 S.W.3d 290, 293 (Tex. App. – Dallas 2001, no pet.).
17. The general rule is that only the parties to a contract have the right to complain of a breach thereof. Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 275, 284 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2008, no pet.).
18. In contract actions, privity of contract is an essential element of recovery. See Gonzales County Water Supply, Corp. v. Jarzombek, 918 S.W.2d 57, 61 (Tex. App. – Corpus Christi 1996, no writ).
19. In order to maintain an action to recover damages flowing from the breach of a written contract, there must be privity existing between the party damaged and the party sought to be held liable for the repudiation of the agreement. Id.
20. A review of the Deed of Trust reveals that privity exists between Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. and Plaintiff. The record shows that Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. is the assumed name of Anita’s Resort Property, Inc., an entity that is not a party to this suit. The record also shows that Anita L. Koop is not Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. and not a party to the Deed of Trust. Therefore, Anita’s Resort Property, Inc. or Anita L. Koop lacks standing to maintain a cause of action against Plaintiff for breach of the Deed of Trust or for a sworn account arising out of the 8/15/1989 sale and purchase agreement. See Wells v. Dotson, 261 S.W.3d 284-85 (Tex. App. – Tyler 2008, no pet.).
21. Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. did not exist at the time suit was filed against Plaintiff. Therefore, it did not have standing to assert a claim against him. See Armes v. Thompson, 222 S.W.3d 79, 83-84 (Tex. App. – Eastland 2006, no pet.) (Decedent did not have actual or legal existence, did not represent a legal entity for purposes of filing suit, had no standing, and her petition did not invoke the trial court’s jurisdiction.).
22. Neither Anita’s Resort Property, Inc. nor Anita L. Koop was a party to the Deed of Trust. Both lack standing to sue.
23. Because the issue of the expiration of the Assumed Name Status of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. presents error that is dispositive of the entire case, it is not necessary to consider the remainder of Plaintiff’s issues. See TEX. R. APP. P. 47.1. Accordingly, all the trial court’s judgments, orders or rulings for Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. since June 6, 1993 must be reversed and judgment must be rendered dismissing all the causes for want of jurisdiction.
SOME WORDS OF WISDOM FOR THE GREEDY
When wealth is lost, nothing is lost; when health is lost, something is lost; when character is lost, all is lost. — Billy Graham
For there is no defense for a man who, in the excess of his wealth, has kicked the great altar of Justice out of sight. — Aeschylus
It is not the creation of wealth that is wrong, but the love of money for its own sake. — Margaret Thatcher
Wealth after all is a relative thing since he that has little and wants less is richer than he that has much and wants more. — Charles Caleb Colton
In light of the above teachings, apparently the Beauty Queen’s character was lost, and all was lost; she has no defense because in the excess of her wealth, she has kicked the great altar of Justice out of sight; she was wrong for the love of money for its own sake. In comparison, I have little and want less, but she has much and wants more! In the end, who is richer?
Furthermore, Anita L. Koop was the main cause of all the 362 posts that I have published since 4/12/2012. Though all the named Officers of the Court are to blame for the wrongs inflicted on me and similarly situated victims, they are in fact victims of Anita L. Koop’s FRAUD, too. Even her husband Terry J. Cox was, is, and has been manipulated and victimized by her. He was reportedly kicked out of the main house and was living in the garage sometime ago! What a hen-pecked —!
“Poor Terry,” sighed my friend. “If he becomes homeless, would you give him shelter?”
“Do you mean I should give him my right cheek after he slapped my left cheek?!” — Well, I can do that, but many of my investors are not Christians. They believe in “an eye for an eye” or “a tooth for a tooth!” They want to chase him and his boss to the end of the world!
***** One of my Blog visitors asked me about the Reinstatement of July 07, 2008 shown on EXHIBIT #1 Assumed Name Status of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. Well, it was related to the Tax Forfeiture of Anita’s Resort Property, Inc. dated February 11, 2005. It has nothing to do with the Assumed Name Certificate of Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc.
* Anita’s Resort Property, Inc. and Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. are two different entities. The IRS should probe into the tax evasion scheme about which I complained to Sheriff B.B. Browning and ADA Shannon Salyer on 11/25/2012. See Sheriff B.B. Browning and ADA Shannon Salyer: Paul Chen’s Complaint Against Your SELECTIVE PROSECUTION. Posted on November 25, 2012 for further information on Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc., Anita L. Koop, and Terry J. Cox.
There are some frauds so well conducted that it would be stupidity not to be deceived by them. — Charles Caleb Colton
A fraud committed under color of state law, I believe, is one of them. That is why Anita L. Koop and Terry J. Cox were able to use the non-existent Anita’s Resort Properties, Inc. to deceive all of us, including but not limited to the Honorable turned Dishonorable Officers of the Court, who are not at all stupid since June 6, 1993!
TO BE CONTINUED.