Is Texas Penal Code (T.P.C.) § 42.105 repugnant to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th, 10th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED This Court has repeatedly admonished lower courts’ disregard of rights with many decisions in favor of the 5 and 14th Amendment rights of individuals to procedural due process and equal treatment, insufficient anonymous tips violate 44 Amendment, protection of the 4th . Amendment against unreasonable searches and seizures is not limited to a situation in which an individual is suspected of criminal behavior, the Fourth Amendment is designed to prevent, not simply to redress, unlawful police action, arrest must stand on firmer ground than mere suspicion and is the fruit of official illegality, arrests can only be made on probable cause, searches conducted without a warrant fail to conform to the Fourth Amendment and are unconstitutional, evidence obtained by unconstitutional search is inadmissible and vitiates conviction, conspiracy is a . distinct evil, dangerous to the public and punishable in itself, judges cannot re-write legislation, the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, all laws repugnant to the Constitution are null and void, a lawyer's special duty is to prevent and disclose frauds upon the court, perjury is as much a crime as tampering with witnesses or jurors and undermines the administration of justice, due process includes the court reviewing the judgment to take into account and not disregard, relevant legal authority not presented to or considered by court of first instance, Judge’s deep seated antagonism towards accused, practicing law from the bench and litigating FOR the prosecutor makes fair judgment impossible, and legislating lifestyle is not function of government. Page 2 of 37 The Appeals Court’s judgment upholding convictions under Texas Penal Code (T.P.C.) § 42.105 is catastrophic for holding that: Petitioner (or anybody else . charged under T.P.C. § 42.105) has no 4th Amendment rights to privacy on private property, no 5 Amendment rights to due process of law and post-deprivation remedies, no 64 Amendment rights to face their accuser or cross-examine witnesses, ' no 8th Amendment rights to be free from cruel and unusual punishment . (overcharged, false charges, conceal and carry permit revoked), no 14 Amendment rights to equal protection — all after conviction is obtained and upheld on police opinion sans proof, and after being charged under a code that was not lawfully passed. The questions presented are: Is Texas Penal Code (T.P.C.) § 42.105 repugnant to the 1st, 4th, 5th, 6th 7th, 8th, gth, 10th, 13th and 14th Amendments to the Constitution for the United States needing urgent review by this Court for creating a conflict of laws by positioning the State of Texas as the victim and the prosecutor at the same time? Is this or is this not arbitrary? Do the 5th, 6% and 14% Amendments prohibit or allow creation of statutes and codes that make the state the victim and the prosecutor? Does T.P.C. § 42.105 create a system of policing for profit? Is policing for profit unconstitutional under the 5th and 6 Amendments? Does policing for profit violate the Constitution for the United States? Page 3 of 37 Does the 6 Amendment secure the accused’s right to face his accuser as opposed to a police officer’s “charges” based on opinion in the absence of a victim, a grand jury indictment, and/or a citizen’s sworn complaint? On what authority or authorities do the appeals courts rely for their . _ decisions? Case law? The Constitution? Commercial law? REVIEW Texas Court of Criminal appeals PD-0603-21 : Texas Thirteenth court of appeals 13-00200-CR Trial Cause #CR-2019-0218