No. 19-5958

Thomas Ritter Helm v. Lisa Lorraine Hauser

Lower Court: Texas
Docketed: 2019-09-17
Status: Denied
Type: IFP
Response WaivedRelisted (2)IFP
Tags: divorce-decree divorce-decree-amendment-state-laws-disregard-stat federal-regulations federal-regulations-disregard-state-court-systems- judicial-discretion precedent-setting precedent-setting-cases precedent-setting-cases-disregard-state-court-syst property-division qualified-domestic-relations-order qualified-domestic-relations-order-disregard-state texas-court-system
Key Terms:
Environmental SocialSecurity Securities Immigration Patent
Latest Conference: 2020-01-10 (distributed 2 times)
Question Presented (AI Summary)

Whether court systems throughout the United States will be allowed to disregard or ignore federal regulations and precedent setting cases based on actions of a Texas court system

Question Presented (OCR Extract)

QUESTION(S) PRESENTED , ° Because a Texas court has awarded the former spouse of a federal employee’s annuity retroactive pay which violates federal directives, and supported by both an appellate court and a : . state’s supreme court, will court systems throughout the United States also be allowed to : disregard or ignore federal regulations based on actions of a Texas court system? _ Because a Texas court allowed a ruling in Shanks v. Treadway, 110 S.W.3d 444, 447 : (Tex. 2003), in this case (Helm v. Hauser), to be applied as a precedent setting case, but then _ignored by allowing extraneous documents to be used to compare against the agreed-upon ; . verbiage written in a Final Decree of Divorce, will court systems throughout the United States also be allowed to disregard or ignore precedent setting cases within or outside their own state ; based on the actions of a Texas court system? , Because a Texas court allowed a ruling in Degroot v. Degroot, 369 s.w.3d 918 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2012, no pet.), in this case (Helm v. Hauser), to be applied as a precedent setting ; case by stating that a signed Qualified Domestic Relations Order entered in the court system, even after . the divorce decree was entered, was binding, but then ignored this ruling which altered the unambiguous : verbiage written the divorce decree, will court systems throughout the United States also be allowed . to disregard or ignore precedent setting rulings within or outside their own state based on the actions of a Texas court system? 7 ; Because a Texas court ignored their own state’s laws and allowed an agreed-upon divorce decree to be amended, modified, altered, or changed, by establishing a new division of 0 property, violating Texas laws and supported by not only an appellate court, but the state’s _ supreme court, will court systems throughout the United States also be allowed to disregard laws . within or outside their own state based on the actions of a Texas court system?

Docket Entries

2020-01-13
Petition DENIED.
2019-12-12
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 1/10/2020.
2019-12-03
Petitioner complied with order of November 12, 2019.
2019-11-12
The motion of petitioner for leave to proceed in forma pauperis is denied. Petitioner is allowed until December 3, 2019, within which to pay the docketing fee required by Rule 38(a) and to submit a petition in compliance with Rule 33.1 of the Rules of this Court.
2019-10-24
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 11/8/2019.
2019-10-09
Waiver of right of respondent Lisa Lorraine Hauser to respond filed.
2019-09-06
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due October 17, 2019)
2019-07-03
Application (19A22) granted by Justice Alito extending the time to file until September 6, 2019.
2019-06-29
Application (19A22) to extend the time to file a petition for a writ of certiorari from July 11, 2019 to September 6, 2019, submitted to Justice Alito.

Attorneys

Lisa Lorraine Hauser
Lisa L. Hauser — Respondent
Thomas Ritter Helm
Thomas Ritter Helm — Petitioner