Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
In The United States District Court                 For the Eastern District of Texas                        Beaumont Divi...
Comes Now the Pro Se Plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II,hereby files a Complaint with the above Honorable Court andfor J...
The above name male, a descendant from a past legacy offorced “Slavery and Servitude” wrongfully committed againstthe Plai...
Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court Plaintiff herein(Hamilton II) continue in 2010 an 2011 being Denied living with“Eq...
DiscriminationDefamationFraudCivil ConspiraciesImpeaching HonestyInjury to ReputationImputation of Crime, Disease and Sexu...
States of America et al) $ 48.6 Million Dollars….for the Com-     pensation loss of 16.2 Million Dollars Plaintiff herein ...
Background        The Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II appearing Pro Se Herein will show the above –Entitled“United Sta...
And for cause the Pro Se Plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, will show the HonorableCourt as Follows:                   ...
Marine Building, L.L.C. et al        1305 Prairie Street Houston, Texas 77002        Harry C. Arthur (Owner) suite 200    ...
Fact(s).        To Wit: The Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II, Respectfully assert all truthful materialfacts her...
The Plaintiff asserts that (Arthur) in Christ church cathedral alleges that the "derelicts" (Christchurch cathedral) assis...
g. To include all Inventory — trading these assets is a normal business of a company.                    The inventory val...
Plaintiff Respectfully state before the Honorable Court that The Marine Building at the timeframe (Arthur) made bogus, fra...
Ms. Kathryn P. Anderson, The Anderson Firm, L.L.C 5629 FM 1960 West, Suite 106 Houston Texas 77069Global 14 Mamaroneck Ave...
Brian GolattCarl NewtonJames HughesPershing PowellLuis GonzagaJohn GoffneyErick CalderonAlex Cantor-MarroquinDeandre Mason...
Marilyn AlemanJennifer, BronfieldShen BurlesonZachary T. BostonMaurice S. BradlyXavier J. CainAugustin CarbajalHomero Coro...
Brett M. FoisieAlejandro FernandezJesus FrancoRicardo GonzalezRubidia GarciaHector GuevaraIsmael GarzaAdolfo C. GonzalezRu...
Aaron D. JohnsonJose D. KatzDiamond LaddermoreVictor LaraJulio C. LopezDuane E. LawrenceDwayne LigginesJonathan L. Limbric...
Ari RiascosAngel Sierra-RojasSergio RodriguezDaniel RamirezDarrel W. ReeceDaniel RamirezLoreli Angel Del-RiveraJesus G. Re...
Dillion W. VernonMarkeith WhitingArthur WoodsVictor M. Zamora       To include the Plaintiff will show “Honorable Court” e...
Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court from November 23 2009 to December 1st 2009 some (8)days later after Defendant hims...
Defendant himself Law Firm & (Arthur Esq.) accumulated per year a Total of $1,998,000.00 (One MillionNine Hundred and Nine...
Augustin CarbajalHomero CoronadoMartha CuellarRosalyn CollinsJohn ContrerasMike C. CisnerosGuadalupe K. CortezMaria I Coro...
Ismael GarzaAdolfo C. GonzalezRuben M. GonzalezSalvador O. GomezYessica Suarez-GalvanRaymon M. GarciaLizette GuerraDavid G...
Dwayne LigginesJonathan L. LimbrickLuis Gerardo LopezFranciso MartinezJose D. jr. MorenoFarris Mc KendallFrancisco MunozSt...
Loreli Angel Del-RiveraJesus G. ReyesMax RezaBenito F. RodriguezEugenio RomeroRonald E. Rowan Jr.Victor Soria-Gutierrez (C...
$18,000,000.00 (Eighteen Million Dollars) which is even maybe slight higher than this simply base uponHouston Scrooge Atto...
32. Allen J. Guidry (Criminal Attorney) suit 300        For a Combine well funded (RICO) Syndicate in easy excess of $ 32,...
To include but not limited to all defendants commitment to a further conjure to work collectivefor defendant (Arthur) sche...
building L.L.C. with the Plaintiff being unwittingly at the “Hands of all defendant(s) herein being thesource of all “depr...
The Plaintiff will show the United States District Court Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) complaintmade against (Christ et al) ...
outrageous acts and actions of the Defendants as described in the Plaintiff original Complaint, AmendComplaint, all motion...
Is the same/equivalent as if claiming the Plaintiff to be a total “water/egg head bumpkin” fromJefferson County, Texas who...
in a public place.          (Arthur et al) have the Plaintiff being involved in these allegations of human nasty waste bei...
Navy Which such “Legal Services” the (Beacon) provided is a “gift of appreciation” for any “Veteran”returning to a “normal...
property @ Marine Building L.L.C. and all over the city of Houston Texas,       To include Plaintiff (Hamilton II) is a re...
RICO “Mail and Wire” nature to others similarly the same,          With “Extreme gross negligent” by Co-Defendant herein “...
and related activity in connection with identification documents),         Section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justic...
And Defamation upon the Plaintiff reputation in this (RICO) Criminal activities      Plaintiff seeks Actual, accumulative,...
Plaintiff further seek Co-Defendant herein (Christ Church Cathedral et al) make Check payable forAwards/compensation in th...
“Buck and The Preacher man”, “Rick and A.J. Simon”, of “Simon & Simon” “Detective Agency”,       “Ben Matlock”,       “Dan...
Pro Se Plaintiff               Opposition to Dismiss,with                                     “Support Brief and Exhibit(s...
First defendant(s) collectively, Arguments and Authority issue  “because of lack of standing “is incorrect                ...
Attorneys of Law.     (An Attorney whom representing him self has a fool for aclient surly applies here)     The Plaintiff...
“Disable American Veteran”      To which said (Beacon) services is still such a services of agift of appreciation on the P...
association with the Beacon)      Plaintiff further state Defendant(s) collectively fail toprovide before the Honorable Co...
*See Plaintiff exhibits attached to Plaintiff Motion for a(TRO) in regards to Arthur et al reply to Plaintiff motions forp...
Plaintiff first respectfully asserts before the HonorableCourt and address the non-fictional facts that the Defendant(s)(A...
To include Plaintiff is a real panhandler derelict of sortswith “not a simple single purpose in life of any sorts”     “Bu...
First the Plaintiff Respectfully assert to the HonorableCourt..! (I really like to slid Arthur Esq. stupid face smoothacro...
4. Not with standing facts that the Plaintiff being a person       whom already is in the need of no more “current legal  ...
disposition standing with the Pro Se Plaintiff” at the past andcurrent time frame.      Plaintiff further refer the Honora...
any guest appearance before the Honorable United StatesDistrict Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division(Honora...
While the Plaintiff is in further pursuit of lost income asdescribed in plaintiff exhibits (G) New Orleans civil action Ca...
request for admission and Production of Documents.     Which Plaintiff respectfully assert before the HonorableCourt said ...
l.   The continual mismanagements in the past drunken     failed exterior painting project of the commercial prop-     ert...
q. The pictures showing continual mismanagements in the        safety in the fire escape extreme and needed up keep       ...
Defendant(s) collectively sought Ultra Vires Acts in theircruel presentations made against (Christ et al) with claims of a...
Hamilton II and rightfully so causing undue disrespectfulbehavior of the same criminal RICO “Mail and Wire nature toothers...
fact deny Defendant(s) herein the matter of defendants (Arthuret al) collective motions to dismiss the Complaint of the Pl...
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al.......

2,883

Published on

Hamilton Vs. United States, Texas, and Harris County

Published in: Education
0 Comments
1 Like
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
2,883
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
1
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Transcript of "Louis charles hamilton ii. vs america et al and state of texas et al......."

  1. 1. In The United States District Court For the Eastern District of Texas Beaumont DivisionLouis Charles Hamilton II(Negro African American) Pro Se Plaintiff Vs.United States of America et al, Defendant Civil No. 1:2011-CV-00122And Vs.State of Texas et al, Co-Defendant(s) Vs.AndHarris County Texas et al, Co-Defendant(s) Complaint and “Jury Demand”
  2. 2. Comes Now the Pro Se Plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II,hereby files a Complaint with the above Honorable Court andfor Just Cause” The Pro Se (Louis Charles Hamilton II) Plaintiff will showthe Honorable Court all facts, circumstances and details asbeing entertain in Justice as follows: 1. Parties Pro Se Plaintiff , Louis Charles Hamilton II, AfricanAmerican Male, Currently Homeless U.S. Navy Veteran,Permanently Disable Veteran protected under: (ADA) Americanwith Disability Act; And also minorities persons cover underTitle VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; Domiciliary State ofTexas, P.O. Box 20126 Houston, Texas 77225 2. The United States of America et al (Defendant) The State of Texas et al (Co-Defendants) Harris County Texas et al (Co-Defendants) 3. Facts
  3. 3. The above name male, a descendant from a past legacy offorced “Slavery and Servitude” wrongfully committed againstthe Plaintiff and His family (Negro) descendants primarilybecause of Pro Se Plaintiff being a member of a race that beingof (Negro) origin, (Now considered politically correct within this time frame)a “Black African American male” within the United States ofAmerica Cause(s) now being filed and complained of before theabove entitled Honorable Court; For said Plaintiff “rightful full relief” for all of the ungodlywrongful, extreme and outrageous, conducts committed by alldescribed Defendants collectively herein, Being both the “direct and indirect” causes for all of thedescribed mention factors being that primarily Plaintiffs was aslave with a result in losses in a normal life, as a result Plaintiff continue the loss of peaceful rights in choice,peace, and freedom having already been established for allother first class citizens within the United States of Americaunder the Constitution instituted for all first class citizens.
  4. 4. Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court Plaintiff herein(Hamilton II) continue in 2010 an 2011 being Denied living with“Equal Protection of the Laws of the United States of America,and The Law of The State of Texas, and Harris County againstthe Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II Will, Peace, Dignity,Respect, and freedom as other national origins of classes enjoyand continue to enjoy within the United States of America aspresent”, With Defendant(s) “The United States of America et al, CoDefendants The State of Texas et al, and Co-Defendants HarrisCounty et al “systematic criminal (RICO) actions and acts”continual as of this undersign date exercise continual wrongfulconduct of “pattern(s) and practices” in (among other things)the rightful “Equal Protection of the Constitutional of theUnited States Laws on the behalf of the Plaintiff in among otherthing Civil Action in Common Law with the Defendantpossession, custody and control. Against the Plaintiff peaceful “Heritage that of (Negroes) toa rightful official standing place as that of a “first class citizens”within the United States of America, States of Texas and the“Equal Protection thereof And for cause of actions:Injury to Personal Reputation
  5. 5. DiscriminationDefamationFraudCivil ConspiraciesImpeaching HonestyInjury to ReputationImputation of Crime, Disease and Sexual MisconductBreach of Contractual AgreementAbuse of Judicial Absolute ImmunityAbuse of Official ImmunityAiding and abetting to commit A Criminal Enterprise in Racketeering against the rights, dignityand will of the PlaintiffObstruction of JusticeObstruction of Criminal InvestigationConspiracies to pursue the same Criminal ObjectiveViolation of Equal Protection under the Law Actual, accumulative, compensatory, consequential, continuing, expectation damages,foreseeable, future, land, hedonic, incidental, indeterminate, reparable, lawful, treble under(RICO), proximate, prospective, special, speculative, substantial, punitive, and permanentdamages Declaration Judgment by a “Jury” that each and every claim, accusation, assertion,contention and charges in all allegations as described fully herein against all Defendants, andtheir agents being entry into the action of this cause in full favor of the Plaintiff Hamilton II(Negro) Black Africa American Plaintiff Awarded Compensations Claims for “serious past, present ,and futureIntentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Mental Anguish being imposed, tariff and levyboth past, current, and future to include but not limited to for all of the Defendants extreme andoutrageous acts as described herein: 1. The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) seeks in addition to the above fore-mention damages awards of direct, actual, compensatory, Direct damages paid to the Pro Se Plaintiff for the wrongful loss in direct damages in the ‘amount of Defendant (United
  6. 6. States of America et al) $ 48.6 Million Dollars….for the Com- pensation loss of 16.2 Million Dollars Plaintiff herein “suffer & Continue to suffer” at the “Hand of the Defendants (The Unit- ed States of America) in a Federal District Court Civil Action filed in Bob Case Federal Court House in Houston Texas.2. The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) seek payment from the Defendant (United States of America) made in a Check payable to “Christ Church Cathedral” in the amount of …… $17,343,681.82. for (Charity on the behalf of the Plaintiff)3. The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) seeks in addition from the Defendant (the Unit- ed States of America) a Check payable to the direct complete, possession, custody 100% con- trol, of “Director” Christine Vera-Green “only” in Port Arthur Texas 77640 “Hospitality Kitchen for the Poor” “up-grade” on the behalf of the Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II herein in the amount of ………$13,177,440.92 for the Plaintiff “Hometown Charity”.4. Co-Defendant (State of Texas et al) $7.2 Million Dollars… The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) seeks in addition to the above fore-mention damages awards of direct, actual, compensatory, Direct damages paid to the Pro Se Plaintiff for Co-Defendant (State of the wrongful loss in direct damages in the ‘amount of Texas et al) $7.2 Million Dollars for the Compensation loss of 2.4 Million Dollars Plaintiff suffer & Continue to suffer at the “Hand of the Defendants (The State of Texas et al , Harris County Court House et al) in a States Court Civil Action filed in Bob Case Federal Court House in Houston Texas5. Co-Defendant (The State of Texas et al) made in a Check payable to “Christ Church Cathedral” in the amount of …$2.800, 000.00 for (Charity on the behalf of the Plaintiff).6. The Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) seeks in addition from the Defendant (the Unit- ed States of America) a Check payable to the direct complete, possession, custody 100% con- trol, of “Director” Christine Vera-Green “only” in Port Arthur Texas 77640 “Hospitality Kitchen for the Poor ” “up-grade” on the behalf of the Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II herein in the amount of ………..$2,856,498.93. For the Plaintiff “Hometown Charity”.
  7. 7. Background The Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II appearing Pro Se Herein will show the above –Entitled“United States Federal District Honorable Court House” and all of its Justice” facts to wit: that on orabout the 24th day of February 2011 the Plaintiff filed the filing civil cause action H-10-2709 with all of itsfacts and also the Plaintiff Motion in Opposition not to dismiss same cause H-10-2709 all of which willshow the above “United States Eastern District Federal Court” Justice following: In The United States of America District Court For The Southern District of Texas Houston DivisionLouis Charles Hamilton II AMEND COMPLAINT # 2 Plaintiff Vs. Civil Action No: H-10-2709Harry C. Arthur (Esq.)Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al, andMarine Building, L.L.C. et al Defendant(s) AndChrist Church Cathedral et al Co-Defendants Comes Now the Pro Se Plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, herein files this Second AmendComplaint, Plaintiff will show the Entitled Above Honorable Court “Detail Facts” against all describedDefendants, Harry C. Arthur (Esq.), Law Office of “Harry C. Arthur et al”, “Marine Building, L.L.C. et al”,and The Co-Defendants “Christ Church Cathedral” et al all being within Houston Texas, (United States of America)
  8. 8. And for cause the Pro Se Plaintiff, Louis Charles Hamilton II, will show the HonorableCourt as Follows: Parties Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II, African American Male, Currently Homeless U.S. Navy Veteran, Permanently Disable Citizen protected under: (ADA) American with Disability Act; And also minorities persons cover under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; DomiciliaryState of Texas, P.O. Box 20126 Houston, Texas 77225 Defendant Harry C. Arthur Esq. A Houston Personal Injury Attorney 1305 Prairie Street Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002 Advertisement states: CALL THE FIRM THAT CARES! Co- Defendant(s) Law offices of Harry C. Arthur 1305 Prairie Street Suite 200 Houston, Texas 77002 Harry C. Arthur (Owner) (Personal Injury Attorney) suite 200 Larry G. Justin (Case Manger) suite 200 Ralph M. Wear (Case Manger) suite 200 Humberto R. Trejo (Criminal Attorney) suite 200 Sonia Behrana (Attorney) suite 200 Pat Vargas Grady (Attorney) suite 200 Co- Defendant(s)
  9. 9. Marine Building, L.L.C. et al 1305 Prairie Street Houston, Texas 77002 Harry C. Arthur (Owner) suite 200 (Tenants) 1. AA Quick Bond suite 100 2. Mike Cox’s Bail SVC suite 101 3. Lacey’s Deli 4. Jonathan A. Gluckman (Attorney) suite 102 5. Wayne Heller (Criminal Attorney) suite 103 6. Law offices of Harry C. Arthur suit 200 7. The Ring Investigations Mark Thering suite 300 8. The Ring Investigations Kandy Villarreal suite 300 9. Mark Thering (Attorney) suite 300 10. Darrel Jordon ( Criminal Attorney) 11. Daniel Perez-Garcia (Criminal/Immigration Attorney) suite 300 12. Marquerite Hudig (Criminal Attorney) suite 300 13. Carl D. Haggard (Attorney Mediator) suite 300 14. F.M. (Poppy) Northcut (Criminal Attorney) suite 300 15. Sandra Martinez (Criminal Attorney) suite 300 16. Allen J. Guidry (Criminal Attorney) suit 300 Co- Defendant(s) Christ Church Cathedral et al, Houston is the cathedral church for the Episcopal Diocese of Texas.The congregation was established in 18391117 Texas Avenue • Houston, Texas 77002 • Phone: 713.222.2593 • Fax: 713.222.2412
  10. 10. Fact(s). To Wit: The Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II, Respectfully assert all truthful materialfacts herein before the above entitled-Honorable U.S. District Court and making declaration underpenalty of Law in that on or about (Nov. 23, 2009 -- three days before Thanksgiving Day)- To Wit: The Defendant (Arthur) and Co-Defendant(s) hereafter named (Law office of Harry C. Arthur) And Co-Defendant(s) (Marine Building L.L.C.) instituted a malicious civil action tort against ChristChurch Cathedral Naming the (Beacon) within the suit seeking several cause of actions namely aim toshut down (Christ); Which capture “News Headlines” as breaking news story local and nationwide throughtransmitting via device such as newspapers, radio, T.V. and Internet” labeling Houston Texas as “Derelicttown” “USA” and the Defendant “Harry C. Arthur Esq. a/k/a “Scrooge” going to put a handle on thingsand toss out the “Nasty” Plaintiff and all homeless people at the homeless center base upon them beinga nuisances among other charges made by (Arthur). To include but not limited to defendant(s) collectively sought to among other things impose apermanent injunction against (Christ) to shut down The Beacon, the homeless center, on the ground itsa "private nuisance”; Claiming among other things in a “Hostile Tort containing defamatory, discriminatory andInvidious Discrimination fashion that the Plaintiff and other(s) similar situated just simply mill about,panhandle, bum cigarettes, urinate, defecate, sleep and make a general nuisance of themselves; See: Harry C. Arthur et al and the Marine Building L.L.C. et al vs. (Christ) Filed in Harris CountyTexas District Court in Houston Texas. In said suit against Christ Church Cathedral, filed on Nov. 23, 2009 -- three days beforeThanksgiving – The Defendant herein Arthur and The Co-Defendant Marine Building et al seek aminimum of $250,000 in damages from Christ Church Cathedral and The Beacon to compensate themfor the loss of rentals in the three-story building and its market value. Defendant Arthurs trial firm is in the building, which is located diagonally across an intersectionfrom The Beacon. The Beacon is operated by Cathedral Health & Outreach Ministries, a nonprofit established bythe cathedral.
  11. 11. The Plaintiff asserts that (Arthur) in Christ church cathedral alleges that the "derelicts" (Christchurch cathedral) assists has become a public nuisance, destroying the value of his business and proper-ty in the process. To include but not limited to Defendant (Arthur) further defaming and applying invidious dis-crimination tact’s against the Plaintiff reputation by accusing the Plaintiff to be a danger to the healthand safety of others in the adjacent areas,” The defendant (Arthur) suit further states. “The (Plaintiff) and other individuals sing play music,dance, and fight and (do) other “undesirable activities” The Defendant (Arthur) says. Further that "If all you do is feed them, you encourage them tostay on the street. And Im afraid that may be kind of a little bit whats happening. They dont have anyincentive to do anything."The Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that each and every defendant listed and described aboveconspire in concert with their individual legal profession as (Attorney of Law) to organize fraudulentrepresentation of Finances in “material facts” in civil tort filing as described above in that the defendantscollectively willfully wanton and aggressively committed the following: 1. Made a fraudulent bogus submission of material facts in Judicial Court records in Harris County Texas that each defendant separately business operation structure in connection with The Marine Building L.L.C. financial income was effected and in great, risk, loss and jeopardy as described in the complaint of (Arthur); a. Made a further fraudulent bogus submission of material facts of insinuation, sugges- tion, implication, allusion and innuendos in Judicial Court records that each defen- dant as described herein personal financial income and all assets derive their of from said business structure as being describe as: Tangible assets those that have a physical substance and can be touched, such as currencies, buildings, real estate, ve- hicles, inventories, equipment, and precious metals b. To include all live stock, farm animals, domestic animals, cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, birds, and stock within the United States; c. To include all live stock, farm animals, foreign animals, cattle, sheep, pigs, horses, birds, and stock; d. To include all Cash and cash equivalents — it is the most liquid asset, which includes currency, deposit accounts, and negotiable instruments (e.g., money orders, cheque, bank drafts). in the United States e. To include all Short-term investments — include securities bought and held for sale in the near future to generate income on short-term price differences (trading secu- rities). f. To include all Receivables — usually reported as net of allowance for uncollectable accounts.
  12. 12. g. To include all Inventory — trading these assets is a normal business of a company. The inventory value reported on the balance sheet is usually the historical cost or fair market value, whichever is lower. This is known as the "lower of cost or market" rule. h. To include all prepaid expenses — these are expenses paid in cash and recorded as assets before they are used or consumed (a common example is insurance). See also adjusting entries. i. To include all Fixed asset in the United States j. Also referred to as PPE (property, plant, and equipment), these are purchased for continued and long-term use in earning profit in a business. This group includes as an asset land, buildings, machinery, furniture, tools, and certain wasting resources e.g., timberland and minerals. They are written off against profits over their antici- pated life by charging depreciation expenses (with exception of land assets). Accu- mulated depreciation is shown in the face of the balance sheet or in the notes. k. To include all capital assets in management accounting. l. To include all "Investments". Long-term investments are to be held for many years and are not intended to be disposed of in the near future. This group usually con- sists of four types of investments: Investments in securities such as bonds, common stock, or long-term notes; Investments in fixed assets not used in operations (e.g., land held for sale); Investments in special funds (e.g., sinking funds or pension funds). 2. Was effected and in great risk, loss, and jeopardy as described in the complaint of (Arthur) because of the action of the Plaintiff and other similarly situated ; 3. Defendant (Arthur) then further in judicial court document filing in said malicious civil tort made the further fraudulent bogus submission of material facts of insinuation, suggestion, implication, allusion and innuendos in Judicial Court records that each defendant as de- scribed herein combine business financial income and (assets) & their personal income and (assets) after deductions of, housing or rent, phone bills, electricity, gas, water and sewer, cable, waste removal, maintenance or repairs, transportation, insurance, food, dining out, pets, personal care, medical, entertainment, taxes (Federal and State), saving or investments As described above was not even enough for (Arthur) future financial business survival andsecurity thereof in the Marine Building L.L.C. and base this all on the actions of the Plaintiff being a“Derelict” among other defamatory statements publish in a “Civil Tort” Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court each defendant singularly and collectively was fullyaware of his actions (most defendants being Attorneys of law no less) in holding together and collectivelyin such omission of actual material facts and allowing (Arthur) in the presentation of all combinefraudulent financial statement(s) being filed before a Texas Court of law by defendant (Arthur) in ahostile tort fashion of each defendant(s) independent business dealing collectively together.
  13. 13. Plaintiff Respectfully state before the Honorable Court that The Marine Building at the timeframe (Arthur) made bogus, fraudulent, false wording before a Harris County Court of Law within theState of Texas in regards to “Lost Revenue and its association with extra rentals”, defendant(s)collectively “new at the very moment they were all combine in providing false material facts when nosuch possible “Rental space revenue loss exist Nor were there any extra spacing for rental at the time frame (Arthur) made complaint against(Christ) nor were there any losses at all in combine said rental property revenue within the “MarineBuilding L.L.C. et al To include but not limited to such other factors that the plaintiff “investigation computation”render true facts that all Co-Defendant(s) Listed above under the “Marine Building L.L.C. et al do in facthaving total possession, total custody and total control of all “possible rental spacing” as stated on thebuilding directory Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (Arthur) and Co-Defendant (Lawoffice of Harry C. Arthur) and the (Marine Building L.L.C. et al) were very delusional, hallucinating,figment of the imagination, and under miss guided myth in the impression and mirage that the Co-Defendants (Marine Building L.L.C.) were with extra spacing for rentals To Include all Defendants herein Straight out lie in all Court Records, Documents, Proceedingsand News Media events during this “Matter”. Pro Se Plaintiff herein Louis Charles Hamilton II will show a Honorable Court that “all of theDefendant” herein (except Co-Defendant Christ Church et al) While during ongoing “Live” Federal Court Proceeding in 2011 at the “Bob Casey Federal Court inHouston Texas “That” all Defendants herein at Law Office Harry C. Arthur et al, and “Marine Building L.L.C.” “Completely toss in the Trash the following files records, interrogatories, request fordisclosures ,Clients Certified Mail, Client complete briefs, Clients Background facts, Responses to requestfor disclosure phone Messages, clients complete home Liability claim, “Internet research material”, phone numbers &Address, Detective reports, Divorce records, Attorneys listing, clients prices listing, Attorney price listing, “United States Bankruptcy Court Records for the Southern District of TexasHouston Division records”, Insurance Records, Criminal records, Civil Records, Subpoena, Summon,Confidential Medical Records, Fax records, Notices, sign in sheets, listing of client(s) for stated:Spradlin, Riley & Spradlin (Attorney at Law) 24017I-45 North Suite 1 (Woodlands, Texas 77380)Spencer Crain Cubbage Healy & McNamara pllc 1330 Post Oak, Suite 1600 Houston Texas 77056
  14. 14. Ms. Kathryn P. Anderson, The Anderson Firm, L.L.C 5629 FM 1960 West, Suite 106 Houston Texas 77069Global 14 Mamaroneck Ave.., 3rd floor White Plains, NY 10601Lyndon B. Johnson Hospital (Houston Texas)Clear Lake Reginal Medical Center ER, Dr. Susanna Perkins (League City), Dr. David Nelson, D.C. (LeagueCity), Dr. John Beerbower, M.D. (Dickinson), Dr. John G. Steele, M.D. (Dallas Texas), Leslie Miller, MOT,OTR (Houston Texas), Dr. Smith Johnston, M.D. (Dallas Texas), Dr. Edward Murphy, M.D. (Houston Texas),(Dr. Govindaraj Ranganathan, M.D. (Friendswood Texas), and Dr. David Durkop, D. C.State farm Insurance Ms. Anise Wu (Austin Texas),Richard Reading and Rhoda Marie ReadingAttorney Ned Gill 6575 West loop south, suite 600, Bellaire Texas 77401(Rhoda Read living @ 1711 McLean Road, Pearland Texas 77584)….Married November 11, 2000Esteban HernandezCalvin BanksJohnny VillatoroNicholas Little (PSI)Ja’mericka HallJorge SantiagoJuan SanchezRichard RamirezDarvin LynnSamuel RobinsonAlvin AlfredEsau VelasquezDamon jaqotJohnathan Simmons
  15. 15. Brian GolattCarl NewtonJames HughesPershing PowellLuis GonzagaJohn GoffneyErick CalderonAlex Cantor-MarroquinDeandre MasonJames HuntleyEduardo QuirogaEduardo GarcilazoAmicar VasquesDennis CariasArthur MirelesCraig ScottAnd Julio MatamoroEteban G. AlvearBaltazar, ArroyoAbraham AparicioWillentett T. AugustFrances ArrendondoJocelyn ArnettTimothoy Adair
  16. 16. Marilyn AlemanJennifer, BronfieldShen BurlesonZachary T. BostonMaurice S. BradlyXavier J. CainAugustin CarbajalHomero CoronadoMartha CuellarRosalyn CollinsJohn ContrerasMike C. CisnerosGuadalupe K. CortezMaria I CoronaDonovan CrosbyGaribaldi CamposJose A. CantuLa Toya C. CarterPaulo Castanuela Jr.Carl A. CrochetAnthony DoyelAndros A. De La CruzSharon L. DolgeAmy Fleming
  17. 17. Brett M. FoisieAlejandro FernandezJesus FrancoRicardo GonzalezRubidia GarciaHector GuevaraIsmael GarzaAdolfo C. GonzalezRuben M. GonzalezSalvador O. GomezYessica Suarez-GalvanRaymon M. GarciaLizette GuerraDavid GonzalezHameedul HassanJennifer HannerLucina M. hernandezDevanand HasmukhRonalald JilesTaft JacksonNathan A. JimenezJohn JoubertMauro JuncoJames G. Jordan
  18. 18. Aaron D. JohnsonJose D. KatzDiamond LaddermoreVictor LaraJulio C. LopezDuane E. LawrenceDwayne LigginesJonathan L. LimbrickLuis Gerardo LopezFranciso MartinezJose D. jr. MorenoFarris Mc KendallFrancisco MunozSteven R. NunezJerry L. PiersonAndrew PhillipsCharles Piercefield Jr.Amilcar PerazSantiago PinedaRuben PugaVictor PortilloCesar A. Palacioa-GarzaRobert RoblesJoseph Rumfolo
  19. 19. Ari RiascosAngel Sierra-RojasSergio RodriguezDaniel RamirezDarrel W. ReeceDaniel RamirezLoreli Angel Del-RiveraJesus G. ReyesMax RezaBenito F. RodriguezEugenio RomeroRonald E. Rowan Jr.Victor Soria-Gutierrez (Corpus Christi)Armand J. SpenceDaniel E. SeguraMustafa SutarwalaPete SaenzHector E. Gonzalez-SilviaKelton SimmonsJose J. SegredoMichael ScottOliveroes J. TorresLuan Cong TrongMaria E. Umanzor
  20. 20. Dillion W. VernonMarkeith WhitingArthur WoodsVictor M. Zamora To include the Plaintiff will show “Honorable Court” evidence with the Plaintiff actual physicalname” Louis Charles Hamilton II” on it… All being criminal, and gross negligent in dumping on the ground behind the Law Office of HarryC. Arthur et al, and The Marine Building L.L.C on 2009 and completed before February 14 2011 All the “Physical Evidence Supporting Plaintiff complete Claims herein this “Federal Civil Action” With Plaintiff herein (Time release photograph exhibits) already filed in the “Federal Courtrecords & Plaintiff herein “Myspace.com account” showing for years 2009 and 2010 showing thecomplete criminal (RICO) activates (among other things) of the “Legal trash” toss on the ground. Which the Plaintiff will show a “Honorable Court” that the Undersign Judge herein acted”Criminal in Conspire actions” with all Defendants in this action involving (Arthur et al) in the bogus boldrefusal to produce any said documents, depositions or evidence in this “Matter and the conspire toscuttle of all evidence which is now in the hands of the Plaintiff Except the “last final missing piece” Plaintiff seeks in this Federal Civil matter the “Deposition”conducted on Houston Texas Scrooge Attorney Harry C. Arthur Esq. By “Andy Vickery” Attorney at Law in Houston Texas during the matter with “Christ ChurchCathedral; As described herein Plaintiff exhibit(s) (A) will show an Honorable United States Federal Courtshowing the Following: Exhibit - (A) Invoice dated 1/31/2011from the Marine Building L.L.C 1305 Prairie, Ste. 200Houston, TX 77002 Bill to: Glenn Loethen 3rd floor (February Rent $400.00 & February parking $100.00) Plaintiff will first show the Honorable Court facts detailing surround Plaintiff exhibit (A) is thisthat during the exact day (Harry C. Arthur Esq. & Marine Building L.L.C et al ) filed suit against (ChristChurch Cathedral) Defendant himself (Arthur) had “just” deposited for the Month of November 2009 rent from(19) tenants all list above @ $400.00 each, Plus $100 each from each tenants for Parking for a Grand Total of = ($9,500).
  21. 21. Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court from November 23 2009 to December 1st 2009 some (8)days later after Defendant himself (Harry C. Arthur Esq. & Marine Building L.L.C et al ) filed suit against(Christ Church Cathedral) “just” deposited another ($9,500) Dollars into the Marine Building L.L.C et alBanking account Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that during the year of 2009 up to the day Defendanthimself (Arthur Esq.) was in possession of the Marine Building L.L.C. (Arthur Esq.) deposited other($108,000) Dollars into the Marine Building L.L.C et al banking account. Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that during the course of this litigation for the year of2010 Defendant himself (Arthur Esq.) deposited another ($108,000) Dollars into the Marine BuildingL.L.C et al banking account. Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant himself (Arthur) for the Last (5) yearsof (Ownership) of the “Marine Building L.L.C. having deposited in excess of ($902,500) Plaintiff assert before the Honorable Court which is actually more income deposited base onLacey’s Deli Commercial sq. ft. at no less than $600-$800 a month rentals (And based on ScroogeAttorney Harry C. Arthur Greed). With tenants Humberto R. Trejo (Criminal Attorney) suite 200, Sonia Behrana (Attorney) suite200 and Pat Vargas Grady (Attorney) suite 200 having not been computation into these ($902,500) yearlyfactors and base upon (Arthur Greed)… Making the income of Co-Defendant “Marine Building L.L.C.” deposited far in excess of($932,500) yearly With a (five) years grand total of $4,512,500. Being deposited into Co-Defendants “MarineBuilding L.L.C.” Banking accounts Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendants herein The “Ring Investigationset al” took in income in (one) month, funds in excess of $9013.53 gross. With deduction for rent and parking of $500.00 leaving Ring Investigation net pay for one monthin excess of $8513.53 Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that the Co-Defendants “Law Office of Harry C. Arthur etal” took income in (one) month time funds in excess of: During the month of November 2009 when (Arthur et al) file suit against (Christ et al)$166,500.00 per month = $330,001.00 for (2) months in the Month of November 2009 and the month ofDecember 2009 When (Arthur et al) launch Hostile Takeover actions against (Christ Church Cathedral Plaintiff will show a “Honorable United States Federal Court” that in the last (5) past years
  22. 22. Defendant himself Law Firm & (Arthur Esq.) accumulated per year a Total of $1,998,000.00 (One MillionNine Hundred and Ninety Eight Thousand Dollars With a Grand total “Nets egg” deposited for a (5) year Law Firm Operation of $9,990,000 Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant himself (Arthur) for the Last (5) yearsof (Ownership) of the “Marine Building L.L.C. having deposited in excess of ($902,500) And for The last (5) past years Defendant himself Law Firm of Harry C. Arthur & (Arthur Esq.)accumulated per year a net Total of $1,998,000.00 (One Million Nine Hundred and Ninety EightThousand Dollars. With a Grand total “Nets egg” deposited for a (5) year Law Firm Operation of $9,990,000combine the two Grand Total for (5) years of the Marine Building L.L.C. and Law Offices of harry C. Arthuret al….. “Drum roll”……..Plaintiff will show an “Honorable Court Grand Total of $11,988,000.00 (ElevenMillion Nine Hundred and Eighty DollarsThis figure was base upon (Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al) Clients listing filed above and for thefollowing Clients:Eteban G. AlvearBaltazar, ArroyoAbraham AparicioWillentett T. AugustFrances ArrendondoJocelyn ArnettTimothoy AdairMarilyn AlemanJennifer, BronfieldShen BurlesonZachary T. BostonMaurice S. BradlyXavier J. Cain
  23. 23. Augustin CarbajalHomero CoronadoMartha CuellarRosalyn CollinsJohn ContrerasMike C. CisnerosGuadalupe K. CortezMaria I CoronaDonovan CrosbyGaribaldi CamposJose A. CantuLa Toya C. CarterPaulo Castanuela Jr.Carl A. CrochetAnthony DoyelAndros A. De La CruzSharon L. DolgeAmy FlemingBrett M. FoisieAlejandro FernandezJesus Franco (ha, ha)Ricardo GonzalezRubidia GarciaHector Guevara
  24. 24. Ismael GarzaAdolfo C. GonzalezRuben M. GonzalezSalvador O. GomezYessica Suarez-GalvanRaymon M. GarciaLizette GuerraDavid GonzalezHameedul HassanJennifer HannerLucina M. hernandezDevanand HasmukhRonalald JilesTaft JacksonNathan A. JimenezJohn JoubertMauro JuncoJames G. JordanAaron D. JohnsonJose D. KatzDiamond LaddermoreVictor LaraJulio C. LopezDuane E. Lawrence
  25. 25. Dwayne LigginesJonathan L. LimbrickLuis Gerardo LopezFranciso MartinezJose D. jr. MorenoFarris Mc KendallFrancisco MunozSteven R. NunezJerry L. PiersonAndrew PhillipsCharles Piercefield Jr.Amilcar PerazSantiago PinedaRuben PugaVictor PortilloCesar A. Palacioa-GarzaRobert RoblesJoseph RumfoloAri RiascosAngel Sierra-RojasSergio RodriguezDaniel RamirezDarrel W. ReeceDaniel Ramirez
  26. 26. Loreli Angel Del-RiveraJesus G. ReyesMax RezaBenito F. RodriguezEugenio RomeroRonald E. Rowan Jr.Victor Soria-Gutierrez (Corpus Christi)Armand J. SpenceDaniel E. SeguraMustafa SutarwalaPete SaenzHector E. Gonzalez-SilviaKelton SimmonsJose J. SegredoMichael ScottOliveroes J. TorresLuan Cong TrongMaria E. UmanzorDillion W. VernonMarkeith WhitingArthur WoodsVictor M. Zamora @ Attorneys fees of $1500.00 per client….. (However the “Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al” Gross 5 year period projection is in excess of
  27. 27. $18,000,000.00 (Eighteen Million Dollars) which is even maybe slight higher than this simply base uponHouston Scrooge Attorney Harry C. Arthur Esq. (Greed). Plaintiff further Assert this $18,000,000.00 combine with all of the other Defendants @ MarineBuilding L.L.C. listed as: Larry G. Justin (Case Manger) suite 200 Ralph M. Wear (Case Manger) suite 200 Humberto R. Trejo (Criminal Attorney) suite 200 Sonia Behrana (Attorney) suite 200 Pat Vargas Grady (Attorney) suite 200 (Tenants) 17. AA Quick Bond suite 100 18. Mike Cox’s Bail SVC suite 101 19. Lacey’s Deli 20. Jonathan A. Gluckman (Attorney) suite 102 21. Wayne Heller (Criminal Attorney) suite 103 22. Law offices of Harry C. Arthur suit 200 23. The Ring Investigations Mark Thering suite 300 24. The Ring Investigations Kandy Villarreal suite 300 25. Mark Thering (Attorney) suite 300 26. Darrel Jordon ( Criminal Attorney) 27. Daniel Perez-Garcia (Criminal/Immigration Attorney) suite 300 28. Marquerite Hudig (Criminal Attorney) suite 300 29. Carl D. Haggard (Attorney Mediator) suite 300 30. F.M. (Poppy) Northcut (Criminal Attorney) suite 300 31. Sandra Martinez (Criminal Attorney) suite 300
  28. 28. 32. Allen J. Guidry (Criminal Attorney) suit 300 For a Combine well funded (RICO) Syndicate in easy excess of $ 32,000,000.00 (Thirty TwoMillion Dollars) “Hostile” “War Chest”….(Attempt) To take on “Christ Church Cathedral et al” in a Hostile takeover” (Which Arthur et al Did in allfacts and circumstances Attempt) Plaintiff further assert his personal expert extreme knowledge that they (Arthur et al) was goingto certainly need $ 32,000,000.00 (Thirty Two Million Dollars) “Hostile” “War Chest Money”…. With “Two Extra Big Titanium Steel Balls” Taking on (Christ et al)…… Base upon: (1). “Christ Church Cathedral et al, Houston” is the “Cathedral Church for the Episcopal Dioceseof the “Whole State of Flipping Texas……Da’ (2.) And the “Houston Cathedral” and The entire congregation was established in 1839 (That Arthur et al and your “Hostile 32 Million Dollars Take Over”) Vs. Very, Very Old Money inHouston Cathedral with interest incurred since… 1839 Added in with The Entire United States of America Federal Government funding for the“Homeless” in the “Top of Millions” of Tax Dollars per year C/o “Christ Church Cathedral et al, Houston”. If ya So (Slooooooooow), “Big rock take little Rock” The Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court all defendant(s) singularly and or collectively werecommitted to making extreme calculations and execution(s) of false prejudice or stereotypingstatements of the reputation of the Plaintiff as described in the “Tort” filed against (Christ) of beingsubstandard which defendant carry out this scheme for profit through the Wide spread media Newsagencies both local and National” at the expense of Plaintiff to be of a“ Nasty horrid revolting reputation” in connection with defendant(s) collective “Financial scheme/crime of things for profit” And conspiracy in connection thereof, for unauthorized access of a protected media computer,public records and court records & court: txed And all protected records thereof, in which all defendant(s) herein collectively did access saidmail and wire computer device(s) to provide and promote tremendous amounts of “Negative”fraudulent personal and business information which were “indeed” attempt to be used in a fraudulentadvantage way to fraud for wrongful future gains of monies and to scam in the devalue of real estateproperty of the Co-Defendant(s) (Marine Building L.L.C.) and surrounding area’s
  29. 29. To include but not limited to all defendants commitment to a further conjure to work collectivefor defendant (Arthur) scheme of things in among other things in obstruction of justice in connection tocollection(s) thereof of all ill-gotten gains And placing a long “term of loss value on (Christ) property in the Houston Down town area Misrepresentation of all material facts in regards to all defendants financial business survival,endurance, continued existence, dilemma, predicament, and possible financial business death during aLegal Judicial proceeding, and in public records Fraudulent omission in the presentation of all material facts in official court records in regards tothe Defendants business financial dire situation to fraud the “Interest of (“Christ”) against the rights ofthe Plaintiff. The Plaintiff will show the “Honorable Court Defendant(s) collective scheme of things could notfor any reasoning exclude the Plaintiff from this group (Beacon Clients) because it would becounterproductive to the “Master Plan” if casting the Plaintiff as the only decent, clean, dirt free,cleanse, spotless, sophisticated, skilled, learn, knowledgeable, educated, and privileged person amongthe group and opposite from the group and the defendant(s) collective scheme has no chance ever ofsurvival. The Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court the Defendant(s) collective scheme of things in theusage of “Invidious Discrimination tactic & Defamatory tactic” against dignity because the Plaintiff is apart of group associated with (Beacon Clients) also was express by the sarcasm, mockery, cynicism,travesty of exaggeration(s) of the Plaintiff to be without cause to exist and Plaintiff only existence onearth in the Houston Texas area is for free food @ the (Beacon) only” To include but not limited to facts surrounding the defendant(s) collectively wrongful use ofliable/slander against (HPD) Houston Police Department to their advantage by ways of making falseclaims of no security being properly provided in the area of the (Beacon) or lack thereof as stated in thecomplaint of the defendant(s) which is so untrue and supported by Police reports in the city of HoustonTexas during the time frame (Arthur) made complaints against (Christ). In which the Defendant(s) collectively further sought safely to carry out their Organization wellpremeditated plans to degrade the downtown area “Property Value” around (“Christ”) with its claims ofthe Plaintiff being “Total Human Trash “ While defendant(s) herein collectively plan a systematic using/planning hostile by further futuremeans to obtain the Property of (Christ) with the unwitting “Media” usage for wide spread mediacoverage in connection with a financial scheme & fraudulent crime of things With the “Media” also as the main driving device to carry out for the defendant(s) “devilyclever” collective “sham and scheme” of things to create a property lost for the benefit of the Marine
  30. 30. building L.L.C. with the Plaintiff being unwittingly at the “Hands of all defendant(s) herein being thesource of all “depreciation and degrading factors” against (Christ) property and the local area propertyfor a profit scam. The defendants (Arthur et al) herein collective scheme of things to attempt also to devalue theproperty of (“Christ”) and the real estate for the benefit of Co-Defendant in this action Marine BuildingL.L.C in the downtown Houston, Texas area To include but not limited to the Free promotionalAdvertisement for Co-Defendant (Law office of Harry C. Arthur) being the Reputed Ruthless Law Firm And all of the ill-gotten revenue derive their from the “New Reputed Ruthless Law FirmReputation” with Defendant (Arthur) and Co-Defendant (Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al) furtherscheme and sham of things being wrongfully promotion with the free planned usage of theunsuspecting, unwitting, unconscious, efforts of all media agencies both “local and national” with the“Internet” included at the expensive of the Plaintiff and other instantaneously similar the same. All was indeed done unjust, and most certainly unwanted against the Plaintiff “rights anddignity”, to include this scheme of things was further to fraudulent cheat (Christ) out of monetaryfederal/private/donation funds in excess of ($250,000) base all wrongfully upon the Plaintiff being“Street Nasty Trash” In the area around The Marine Building L.L.C. for a future profit scheme of the Defendant(s)collective shame to include alternatively Plaintiff is able to show the defendant(s) having furtherpremeditated plans after the impose permanent injunction against the (Beacon) defendant(s) sought tofurther obtain (Christ) property for them self or together with some other real estate conglomerate forfurther scam for profit(s). Plaintiff further assert In the process of (Arthur et al ) doing “all of the above nasty” defendant(Arthur et al) then went further and “stole” the Plaintiff “Christmas Holiday season of 2009” While attempting on giving the “Christ et al” “a black eye” before Thanksgiving day of 2009 inthe “National media” in the process with all of the criminal (RICO) display that Defendant (Arthur et al )having now balls after making all of this unwanted, wrongfulAnd unjust fuss having the nerves of filing a dismissal of his civil suit as if nothing “ever”, “ever”, “even”“Happen” further causing the Plaintiff emotional distress and mental anguish in being involved with(Arthur et al ) in any form” both past, present and future. Plaintiff Assert that Defendant, (Arthur Esq.), Co-Defendant(s) (Law office of Harry C. Arthur etal) and Co-Defendant (Marine Building L.L.C. et al) Individually and collectively as described herein above committed all acts and actions asdescribed fully herein in Violations committed under Chapter 96 of Title 18, United State Code: (RICO)Racketeering Influences Corruption Organization practices against the legal rights of the Plaintiff inconnection with Fraud as described here in the (2) Amend Complaint.
  31. 31. The Plaintiff will show the United States District Court Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) complaintmade against (Christ et al) was in the nature of seeking monetary relief for the so call property damages,loss rentals, and property value loss in lieu of Plaintiff alleged acts, Yet the Defendants collectively continue to disregard their own “actual property value” by theDefendants on mismanagements mistake in Commercial Property up keeps by way of the followingexhibit(s) already on the United States Federal District Court files: a. The continual human waste already complain of still being published and posted for over a 2 year period of time*See Plaintiff exhibit (P-1), photo in 2009 b. The continual mismanagements in the past drunken failed exterior painting project of the commercial property and any future up keep in this area being provided for over a period of 2 years. *See Plaintiff exhibit (P-2) photo in 2009 c. The continual mismanagements in the safety in the fire escape extreme and needed up keep *See Plaintiff exhibit (P-3), photo in 2009 d. The continual mismanagements in nasty restaurant trash simply left about on the ground for lots of rodents’ for over a period of 2 years *See Plaintiff exhibit (P-4) photo in 2009 e. The continual mismanagements in the finances needed to provide for all of the extreme and well over due needs as described in paragraph a, b, c, and d above The continual human waste already complain of still being published and posted for over a 2 year period of time*See Plaintiff exhibit (P-1), photo in 2009 f. The continual mismanagements in the past drunken failed exterior painting project of the commercial property and any future up keep in this area being provided for over a period of 2 years. *See Plaintiff exhibit the new 2010 series of pictures….  g. The pictures showing continual mismanagements in the safety in the fire escape extreme and needed up keep *See Plaintiff exhibit 2010 up dated h. The continual mismanagements in restaurant trash simply left about on the ground for ro- dents’ for over a period of 2 years *See Plaintiff exhibit 2010 up date i. The continual mismanagements in the finances needed to provide for all of the extreme and well over due needs as described in paragraph a, b, c, and d above with 2010 photograph up detail up date. j. With the Illegal Immigrants attempt at futile repairs Plaintiff was in fact both a direct and indirect party of all wrongful involvements as described bythe Defendant(s) own wording in the complaint against (Christ et al) And serious damages did in fact occurred by all of the collectively hostile, extreme and
  32. 32. outrageous acts and actions of the Defendants as described in the Plaintiff original Complaint, AmendComplaint, all motions and exhibits currently before the Honorable Court. With all Plaintiff mental medical records on file at the Harris County in support of the Defendantcausing Plaintiff intentional emotional harm, complete severe mental anguish Defendant(s) collectively sought Ultra Vires Acts in their cruel presentations made against (Christet al) with claims of a profound impact that the “Nasty Plaintiff” impose on the Public interest, health,and safety as described in (Arthur et al) complaint against (Christ et al) In addition the Defendants herein collectively sought to impose a “less value of worth” towardsthe public impression of the Plaintiff base upon the complaint, while inciting racial hate, ridicule of ascheme for monetary fund’s against (Christ et al) thinking (Christ et al) is weak unprotected & meanwhilethe scum Derelicts & panhandlers pose no threat and Are too stupid to understand the Defendants herein collectively Criminal RICO “Mail and Wire”Fraud Scheme of things for greed, and the Plaintiff too legal weak and unprotected cause he is streettrash. Plaintiff will show the United States Federal Court Defendants to this action one (Arthur et al)“boldly and foolishly” is now desecrating such the “Honorable Work Product” of the two Professionallegal Attorneys”. By way of Defendant (Arthur et al) claiming/theft the entire work product of anotherAttorney(s) work product. Namely (Andy Vickery& Kenny IV Esq.) the “Professional legal Attorneys” listed above who’slegal wording design in the deposition with the Plaintiff (Hamilton) own work product of legaldocuments being also provided to (Andy Vickery Attorney at Law & Kenny IV Esq.) before hand of saidDeposition of (Arthur Esq.) The work product of namely (Andy Vickery& Kenny IV Esq.) the “Professional legal Attorneys”against (Arthur et al) in the past in all fact and circumstances defeated (Arthur Esq. and Law Office ofHarry C. Arthur et al and The Marine Building L.L.C. et al” and not some (Bogus) materials that mayhaving been prepared by (Arthur et al) “himself” with an eye towards the realistic possibilities indefense of this particular impending litigation against The Plaintiff (Hamilton II) And or materials that (Arthur Esq.) prepared in defense of himself in his on directexamination...? In the previous civil action against the “Holy Church”. Defendant (Arthur et al) seems to think now collectively combining his other wrongful acts andactions precisely committed and directed against the Plaintiff rights and dignity in the past that anyfuture defamatory acts and further fraudulent practices by said defendant (Arthur et al) in the nowstated claims of the work product of another Attorney(s) deposition…
  33. 33. Is the same/equivalent as if claiming the Plaintiff to be a total “water/egg head bumpkin” fromJefferson County, Texas whom happen to fallen of a Long Horn Cattle truck in a pasture field upon apetrified pieces of cow crap …thus providing the Plaintiff already being further in a state …from allleaves of his own common sense and fully rendering this Plaintiff (Hamilton II) as a previously mentioned total “water/egg headbumpkin” ignorant of all of the Civil Court laws of the United States “that even a 5th grader can figureout” in regards to the “work product” and or “Attorney/client doctrine” defendants (Arthur et al) nowseeks foolish refuge under. Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that the Defendant (Arthur et al) even refuse to file thesuit against the correct Defendants’ and avoid the Plaintiff from suffering being humiliated in public withexcitement of ridicule from others which (Arthur) cause to include causing the Plaintiff further innerhumiliation In which he (Arthur) should have filed his suit against the “City of Houston et al” for notproviding needed restrooms for the homeless population like other metropolitan cities “In fact do” with a large homeless population equal to the City of Houston TX similar homelesspopulation and or smaller cities population “yet” homeless people are having adequate restroom accessother then here within “Houston” Texas which defendant (Arthur) did not pursue this avenue; Instead (Arthur) attack the Beacon clients “Only” as if all of the clients are guilty of the humancrap and urine on his building and especially slow in the brain department in being afraid to pursuerightful legal actions against a (Attorney) no less for his wrong actions; Plaintiff will show the United States Federal Court Defendant (Arthur et al) further refuse to“add all other” outreach centers located throughout the Houston (CBD) central business district asjoining Plaintiff in his action against the Christ Church Cathedral, and the Beacon… Defendant (Arthur etal) went after “Christ Church Cathedral” And the Beacon (Only) with his suit while his scheme of things include defaming the Plaintiff inthe process while (Arthur) attempt to achieve monetary fund’s based on defaming and discriminatingagainst the Plaintiff rights and dignity; Instead of (Arthur et al) implying some of the client(s) of the beacon being Derelict(s) withimplication in the definition of derelict that charges the Plaintiff with the further commission of a crimeof crapping, pissing and vomiting on the property of the Defendant; (Arthur et al) “Unflinchingly, courageously, and with an Audaciously bold potty mouth” withstrong references to “defecation, crap, feces matter and Urine discharge “as loath some” as one can getwith this kind of human product waste being criminally involved And or as in the “Hood” or any other place with among my (African American) people wouldrefer to as “S.H.I.T.” and “Piss” and or one “nasty” “Trifling mother fu_ker” to be doing this kind of acts
  34. 34. in a public place. (Arthur et al) have the Plaintiff being involved in these allegations of human nasty waste beingwrongfully discharge and its involvement with the Plaintiff (among other statements) that refer to thePlaintiff further being associated with being a nuisances in Houston, Texas being made public not justlocal but “Nationwide” to include but not limited to the “World” via the “Internet” (Arthur et al) then wanted to shut down the Plaintiff “feedhole” namely “The Beacon” “Only”with strong emphases on “forever” And terminated any further charity outreach at this beacon facility “Only” in the (CBD) while(Arthur et al) further attempt to steal $250,000.00 dollars of the Plaintiff “Poor man money” The Plaintiff will show the Honorable Court that all of the Defendant(s) collectively herein whilehaving several “legal degrees” @ Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al to “boot” and “Marine BuildingL.L.C., Quite failing “on purpose” once again to print the “Whole Truth” in a simple honest legalAttorney form in a Motion to dismiss this action (Stating the Plaintiff has no legal standing in Texas)”. “With the full knowledge “Taxpayers in the State of Texas” “have standing to enjoin the illegalexpenditure of public funds”, and “need not demonstrate a particularized injury”.  Which thedefendant(s) wishes to mislead the Honorable Court in the Plaintiff current legal standing before thecourt: See id.; Calvert v. Hull, 475 S.W.2d 907, 908 (Tex.1972);  Osborne v. Keith, 142 Tex. 262, 177S.W.2d 198, 200 (1944).   Implicit in this rule are two requirements:  (1) that the plaintiff is a taxpayer; and (2) that publicfunds are expended on the allegedly illegal activity.   See Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 556;  Calvert, 475 S.W.2d at908;  Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200. Yet the Defendant(s) collectively wishes to continue committing to further “pattern andpractices” of “Illegal Misrepresentation of all “material facts in the capacity of Attorneys of Law. (An Attorney whom representing himself has a fool for a client surly applies here) The Plaintiff further respectfully asserts that in the Defendants motion to dismiss on therecords of this action quoted:Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 178-79 (Tex) “Which do not even in all fact and circumstances apply inthis matter: “Taxpayers in Texas legally have standing to enjoin the illegal expenditure of public funds, and“need not” demonstrate a particularized injury” as stated by the Law Books. “Moreover” the Plaintiff is a Veteran of the “Armed Force Services” namely the “United States
  35. 35. Navy Which such “Legal Services” the (Beacon) provided is a “gift of appreciation” for any “Veteran”returning to a “normal start” in life within Houston Texas” With the full support by all of the taxpayer “Nation Wide” in association with the United StatesFederal Government providing a funding to a legal operation to provide not just for the Plaintiff behalf indire situations needs of being poor, To include but not limited to the said “Armed Force Services” namely the Navy for argumentsake “if being a possible “direct cause” of the Plaintiff being at a state of “Disable American Veteran” To which said (Beacon) services is still such a services of a gift of appreciation on the Plaintiffbehalf and a direct legal needed aid in returning to a normal new start in life with a “Disability”moreover, Still leaving the (Beacon) and its “legal services” a gift of appreciation for a (DAV) DisableAmerican Veteran being provided that is supported by all of the taxpayers “Nation Wide”, In association with the United States Federal Government providing a funding to a legaloperation to provide not just for the Plaintiff behalf in dire situations needs of being poor, To include but not limited to The Defendant(s) in (Arthur et al) collectively wishes to maintain inthe delusions of the Plaintiff was not a party to the “cause of actions” being brought in said suit against(Christ et al) or any damaged being caused by any actions of the defendants as a result of their law suit. And Plaintiff has no justifiable interest in his allegations made against collectively against all ofthe Defendants in his complaint. Plaintiff first respectfully asserts before the Honorable Court and address the non-fictional factsthat the Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) collectively did not file suit against “Christ Church Cathedral” for: (1).a sexual misconduct nature of any Defendant(s) herein “genitals” being in violations of somesorts or sodomizing acts being past or present occurred and committed against any of the Defendantsrights, will & Dignity; by (Christ et al) (2). nor did the Defendant(s) collectively seek concrete civil refugee in a suit against (Christ) withconcrete claims in a nature that a “Brick” happening to “heavenly dislodge itself” from the “Cathedralhigh castle structure” and simply pick –n-fall upon any of their collectively heads; Plaintiff strongly assert before the Honorable Court that These Greedy Nasty Defendant(s)collectively herein (Arthur et al) made real criminal intent in a “Mail and Wire” fraud scheme of thingsamong other (RICO) and State Civil Charges against the Plaintiff rights, peace, dignity all for profit andbogus claims filed further on the “Harris County Court Wire system in Houston Texas” which is then“broadcast” “Nationwide” no less” That the Plaintiff being a client of the beacon Is now factual a “nasty dog of a person who cannothold his “crap from his rectum or urine” therefore likes pissing all over the Defendant (Arthur Esq.)
  36. 36. property @ Marine Building L.L.C. and all over the city of Houston Texas, To include Plaintiff (Hamilton II) is a real panhandler derelict of sorts with “not a simple singlepurpose in life of any sorts” “But bum smokes and like dancing in the streets” Among other crude statements being made in said complaint against (Christ et al) And the Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) herein collectively is entitled to a special grand “Hefty”$250,000.00 Dollars. From the Co-Defendants (Christ et al) To include but not limited to the Federal Government legal support of the (Beacon) for thePlaintiff behalf is “Hereby fully and forever close to boot” in this “Obstruction of Justice” of a legalFederal Funded Operation With all of the Defendants “Claims” (“among other things”); Lost some rentals funds and Defendants (Arthur Esq.) “Main property value” (Marine BuildingL.L.C. Is now in the “Super Trash Can” and the reasoning is based upon the Pro Plaintiff herein (HamiltonII) is super nasty and very lose on the City of Houston Texas. Therefore the City of Houston is now official “Derelict Town USA” base upon the Plaintiff asdescribed by (Arthur et al). And Plaintiff wishes to remind the United States Federal Court all of this is based upon theactions of the Defendants et al in a hostile civil suit against (Christ et al) for the relief of direct monetarycompensation in value of said whopper of a sum in excess of $250,000.00 with full time forever closureof the (Beacon et al) But the Plaintiff is not a party…? Nor was the Plaintiff damage in any form….? Plaintiff (2) Amend Complaint states a long list of “Legal Federal cause of actions with newupdate exhibits attached herein of Legal Exhibits from the Defendant(s) in the possession of the Plaintiffas described herein Fully Furthering “The United States of America Federal Court” requiring the Defendant(s)collectively herein (Arthur et al and (Christ et al) to be held fully “responsible and most accountable”before a “United States Federal Court” for all of these criminal and civil acts And actions described against the Plaintiff peaceful rights, will, and dignity as described herein, Plaintiff further assert Defendant (Arthur et al) and Co-Defendants (“Christ et al”) collectivelyhaving cause enough “emotional trauma” and National disrespect to the Plaintiff Louis Charles HamiltonII As described herein and rightfully so, causing undue disrespectful behavior of the same criminal
  37. 37. RICO “Mail and Wire” nature to others similarly the same, With “Extreme gross negligent” by Co-Defendant herein “Christ et al” in Defense of the Plaintiff“Race”, “Veteran status” “Religion”, “Peace”, “Will” and “Dignity” at all times by (Beacon et al) there afterPlaintiff provide (Christ et al) “legal civil team” evidences, facts, legal support, in their civil countersuitagainst (Arthur et al). With details facts of Plaintiff intended legal pursuit of (Arthur et al) in all documents, faxtransmissions, letters and records, and Plaintiff Pro Se Civil Counter Civil action against (Arthur et al). Notwithstanding all “current exhibits” with detail real facts of all photograph evidence filed inthe “Honorable Court and the Plaintiff Myspace.com photos on the “Internet” thus far being submittedin the records , depicted and showing Defendant(s) (Arthur et al), (Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al), And (“Marine Building L.L.C.) such collectively nasty, disgusting trailer trash disgusting nature inbeing all supposedly Professional Attorneys and Business operating out of “Co-Defendant “MarineBuilding L.L.C..” with such Nasty, poor un-kept, run down property waste conditions’, creepy drunkcommercial painting, useless fire escape safety hazard , And “Ton’s, upon, Ton’s, of Client’s “Civil & Criminal Legal” Trash being physically dump on theground for exposure to ridicule, scorn, mock, tease, jeer at, make fun of, derision, deride, andcomplete poke fun at. By the General Public of Clients (Arthur et al) and (The Marine Building L.L.C. et al) Since Plaintiff herein (Hamilton II) recorded during 2009- 2010 and now file exhibit(s) in 2011against the “Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al”, & “Marine Building L.L.C”, and Harry C. Arthur Esq. Plaintiff moves for Each Defendant(s) and Co-Defendant(s) each and their “perspectiveAttorneys” filing a response with the clerk in regards to all of the Following (2) Amend Complaint” andfor the reasons as stated in above regards to the all of Defendants Collectively actions as Amend Hereinthe (2) Amend Complaints. Cause of action 1. The Pro Se Plaintiff reincorporates and state all previously stated cause of actions in the“Original complaint” and The First Amend complaint; as fully enforced and stated herein for: Wrongful acts and actions collectively conspire to willfully, with full disregards or consequencesof their acts/actions committed all in Violations under Chapter 96 of Title 18, United State Code: (RICO) Racketeering Influences CorruptionOrganization,Section 1341 (relating to mail fraud), section 1343 (relating to wire fraud), section 1028 (relating to fraud
  38. 38. and related activity in connection with identification documents), Section 1503 (relating to obstruction of justice), section 1510 (relating to obstruction of criminal(RICO) investigations), section 1956 (relating to the laundering of monetary instruments),Computer Fraud and Abuse Act (CFAA) 18 U.S.C. § 1030 in connection with all criminal (RICO) acts andactions, as described herein, and conspiracies to violate (RICO).Multiple Schemes and Patterns to commit among other things: (a) Mail and Wire Fraud as described herein, and conspiracies to violate (RICO). (b) Aiding and abetting to commit A Criminal Enterprise in Racketeering against the rights, digni- ty and will of the Plaintiff and Plaintiff(s) Plaintiff reincorporates and state all previously stated fact in the Original, first amend complaintand (2) Amend Complaint for full Declaratory Judgment Being made entered into the records of this action that each and every claim, accusation,assertion, contention And charges in this (2) Amend Complaint as described fully herein against all Defendants, andtheir agents being entry into the action of this cause in full favor of the Plaintiff Against each of the Defendants, (Arthur Esq.) And Co-Defendants (Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al), And Co-Defendants (Marine Building L.L.C.) and Co-Defendants (Christ et al). Individually and collectively as described herein said complaint being committed all acts andactions, to include “Obstruction of Justice”, False exhibit of Material facts, Conspiracies to pursue the sameCriminal Objective, Co-Defendant (Christ et al) Violation of the Plaintiff Equal Protection under the Law. Civil Conspiracy, Actual Fraud, Fraud upon the Court, Malicious Civil Prosecution of a Tort ,Injury to Plaintiff Personal Reputation, Impeaching Plaintiff Honesty, Imputation of Crime, Disease andor Sexual Misconduct, Destruction, alter and or direct destruction of “Material Civil Evidences and Facts”, “Slander ofthe Plaintiff”, “Libel of Plaintiff”;
  39. 39. And Defamation upon the Plaintiff reputation in this (RICO) Criminal activities Plaintiff seeks Actual, accumulative, compensatory, consequential, continuing, expectationdamages, foreseeable, Future, incidental, indeterminate, reparable, lawful, proximate, prospective, special, speculative,substantial, Punitive, Defamation, Discrimination and Permanent damages; Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and Mental Anguish being entry into the recordsagainst all Defendants herein to Plaintiff Awarded Compensations Claims for “Serious past, present ,and future Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress and MentalAnguish being imposed, tariff and levy both past, current, and future; Defendants (Arthur et al), Co-Defendants (Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al) and Co-Defendants (“Marine Building L.L.C. et al) in the Amount already having been established in the AmendComplaint in excess of $16.2 Million Dollars from a Jury. To include but not limited to: Exemplary treble damages under (RICO) statue being awarded tothe Plaintiff (Hamilton II) as described in the $16.2 Million Dollars Judgment by a Jury. With 10% being deducted from each and every Defendant herein Namely (Arthur et al), (LawOffice of Harry C. Arthur et al) And (The Marine Building L.L.C. et al) from all said judgments awards and compensations by aJury in this action And made payable to Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) choice of Charity organization“Namely” “Christ Church Cathedral” if ya Sloooooooow. It’s a“Cathedral Church for the “Episcopal Diocese of Texas”. The congregation was established in 1839 itsaddress is1117 Texas Avenue • Houston, Texas 77002 • Phone: 713.222.2593 • Fax: 713.222.2412 And entry into the records against Co-Defendant (Christ Church Cathedral) in the Amount of $2.4Million Dollars. With full interest incurred since date of injury of November 23 of 2009
  40. 40. Plaintiff further seek Co-Defendant herein (Christ Church Cathedral et al) make Check payable forAwards/compensation in the amount of: $2,391,350.33 To the Plaintiff (Louis Charles Hamilton II) choice of Charity organization “Namely”….Drumroll…………. “Christ Church Cathedral” if ya Sloooooooow. It’s a“Cathedral Church for the “Episcopal Diocese of Texas”. The congregation was established in 1839 itsaddress is1117 Texas Avenue • Houston, Texas 77002 • Phone: 713.222.2593 • Fax: 713.222.2412 All Defendants’ each herein be made to pay all Court cost, and Any Attorneys Cost. Plaintiff (Hamilton) seek the Honorable United States District Court Courtesies in Disciplinaryreferral of Attorney(s) at Law (Arthur et al) to the Texas Lawyer Bar Associated governing AttorneyDisciplinary activities for each Attorney Defendant herein For full legal “Disbarment proceeding commence (ASAP) against” (Arthur et al Attorney atLaw(s))(Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al and (Marine Building L.L.C. Attorneys at law(s) for his entire hostile,extreme, extra special outrageous Illegal criminal (RICO) conducts, and Fraudulent actions as described herein throughout the (2)Amend Complaint of the Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II And for all “Deem just and being Honorable before this United States Federal Court during alawful proceeding on the behalf of the Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II. “Conclusion”Dedications to “Cmdr. Bluefin “Sherlock Holmes Mystery Case of”: “The Talking Treasure Box”its Cast:
  41. 41. “Buck and The Preacher man”, “Rick and A.J. Simon”, of “Simon & Simon” “Detective Agency”, “Ben Matlock”, “Danny Ocean”, “Monk”, And a very sneaky (Thomas Magnum) the little voice in my head….xoxox!Dated this ______ Day of _________________, 2011 Submitted Respectfully By: ____________________________ Louis Charles Hamilton II Pro Se Plaintiff P.O. Box 20126 Houston Texas, 77225 United States District Court Southern District of Texas Houston DivisionLouis Charles Hamilton II Plaintiff Motion in
  42. 42. Pro Se Plaintiff Opposition to Dismiss,with “Support Brief and Exhibit(s)” Vs. Civil action No.H-10-2709Harry C. Arthur (Esq.) DefendantLaw office of Harry C. Arthur et al Co- Defendant(s)Marine Building, L.L.C. et al Co-Defendant(s) Comes now the Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II;files his motion, with attached brief and exhibit(s) in support ofPlaintiff Motion in Opposition to “not-dismissing “numbercause H-10-2709 in the Civil Matter of Louis Charles Hamilton IIvs. Harry C. Arthur et al, now being entertain before theHonorable Court; And for cause the Plaintiff will show the following: 1. Defendant(s) collectively moves for a “joint dismissal” from this action applying their weird senile reasoning on several factors which the Plaintiff shall address each;
  43. 43. First defendant(s) collectively, Arguments and Authority issue “because of lack of standing “is incorrect Brief I. The Defendant(s) collectively while having several “legaldegrees” @ Law Office of Harry C. Arthur et al to “boot”,Quite failing once again to print the “Whole Truth” in a simplehonest legal Attorney form”. “Taxpayers in the State of Texas” “have standing to enjointhe illegal expenditure of public funds”, and “need notdemonstrate a particularized injury”.  Which the defendant(s)wishes to mislead the Honorable Court in the Plaintiff currentlegal standing before the court: See id.; Calvert v. Hull, 475 S.W.2d 907, 908 (Tex.1972);  Osborne v. Keith, 142 Tex. 262, 177 S.W.2d 198, 200 (1944).   Implicit in this rule are two requirements:  (1) that theplaintiff is a taxpayer; and (2) that public funds are expended onthe allegedly illegal activity.   See Bland, 34 S.W.3d at 556;  Calvert, 475 S.W.2d at 908;  Osborne, 177 S.W.2d at 200. Yet the Defendant(s) collectively wishes to continuecommitting to further “pattern and practices” of “IllegalMisrepresentation of all “material facts in the capacity of
  44. 44. Attorneys of Law. (An Attorney whom representing him self has a fool for aclient surly applies here) The Plaintiff further respectfully asserts that:Williams v. Lara, 52 S.W.3d 171, 178-79 (Tex) do not even applyin this matter: “Taxpayers in Texas have standing to enjoin the illegalexpenditure of public funds, and “need not” demonstrate aparticularized injury”. “Moreover” the Plaintiff is a Veteran of the “Armed ForceServices” namely the “United States Navy” *See Attachmentexhibit (A); (Plaintiff Veteran ID) Which such “Legal Services” the (Beacon) provided is a“gift of appreciation” for any “Veteran” returning to a “normalstart” in life within Houston Texas” With the full support by all of the taxpayer “Nation Wide”in association with the United States Federal Governmentproviding a funding to a legal operation to provide not just forthe Plaintiff behalf in dire situations needs of being poor, To include but not limited to the said “Armed ForceServices” namely the Navy for argument sake “if being apossible “direct cause” of the Plaintiff being at a state of
  45. 45. “Disable American Veteran” To which said (Beacon) services is still such a services of agift of appreciation on the Plaintiff behalf and a direct legalneeded aid in returning to a normal new start in life with a“Disability” moreover, Still leaving the (Beacon) and its “legal services” a gift ofappreciation for a (DAV) Disable American Veteran beingprovided that is supported by all of the taxpayers “NationWide”, To include but not limited to the services being providedby the (Beacon) namely Christ Church Cathedral is an act of“Devine Holiness” by its Congregation, Founders, Providers, andinspire by the teaching of Jesus Christ in association with “God”for over 170 years at the present location for not only the needof the Plaintiff but also God’s Children *See Plaintiff attached exhibit (B)…… (Beacon et al). The Plaintiff is a “past and currently present” Client of theBeacon in association with “Christ Church Cathedral” especiallyat the time frame of all of the acts, actions, and incidentsagainst the Plaintiff rights will, and dignity made for the basicsof this action as described by the Plaintiff in the AmendComplaint. *See Attachment exhibit (C); (Plaintiff Client letter in
  46. 46. association with the Beacon) Plaintiff further state Defendant(s) collectively fail toprovide before the Honorable Court to the effect “Proof of anywritten agreements being made between (Arthur et al) and themystery Confederates in agreement with the (Beacon et al) thatthe reasoning the “Non-suit filing” was made to support (Arthuret al) false pretense in now the need to cover up the“Defendants collectively criminal mail and wire fraud scheme ofthings and all other expose “legal Interest” now being describedby the Plaintiff; Plaintiff clearly stated all post cover up “acts and actions”involving alleged “working together” is a front for theDefendant(s) collective “Mail and Wire” fraud scheme of thingstheir after the exposure of (Arthur et al) bogus intents Through the Professional deposition being conductedagainst (Arthur et al) in among other things his discrepancies innumerous false finances statements made during his hostileactions against (Christ) in a complaint and filed before a HarrisCounty court of law; Such collective “bogus illegal and quite fraudulent intent ofthe Defendant(s) being brought to light first and foremost bythe “exclusive experience work product” and direct examinationdeposition of (Andy Vickery) and (Kinney IV) Respectful honestAttorneys for (Christ et al) to defeat (Arthur et al) “under oath”.
  47. 47. *See Plaintiff exhibits attached to Plaintiff Motion for a(TRO) in regards to Arthur et al reply to Plaintiff motions forproduction of the deposition as (Arthur et al) supplyinformation in regards to protecting property financinginformation’s contain in among other things in the depositionconducted “against” (Arthur et al) by (Christ) et al ProfessionalHonest Attorneys of record Andy Vickery and Kinney IV Now which Defendants herein collectively attempt thissame rouge ploy in said discovery request to with hold from thePlaintiff during civil actions in Harris County Court files. Plaintiff further respectfully asserts (Vickery) madestatements to the effect a deposition of (Arthur) being underoath should clear up his judgment in public news media reports. II The Defendant(s) in (Arthur et al) collectively wishes tomaintain in the delusions of the Plaintiff was not a party to the“cause of actions” being brought in said suit against (Christ etal) or any damaged being caused by any actions of thedefendants as a result of their law suit. And Plaintiff has no justifiable interest in his allegationsmade against collectively against all of the Defendants in hiscomplaint.
  48. 48. Plaintiff first respectfully asserts before the HonorableCourt and address the non-fictional facts that the Defendant(s)(Arthur et al) collectively did not file suit against “Christ ChurchCathedral” for: (1).a sexual misconduct nature of any Defendant(s) herein“genitals” being in violations of some sorts or sodomizing actsbeing past or present occurred and committed against any ofthe Defendants rights, will & Dignity; by (Christ et al) (2). nor did the Defendant(s) collectively seek concrete civilrefugee in a suit against (Christ) with concrete claims in a naturethat a “Brick” happening to “heavenly dislodge itself” from the“Cathedral high castle structure” and simply pick –n-fall uponany of their collectively heads; Plaintiff strongly assert before the Honorable Court thatThese Greedy Nasty Defendant(s) collectively herein made realcriminal intent in a “Mail and Wire fraud scheme of things forprofit and all bogus claims filed further on the “HonorableHarris County Court Wire” which is then “broadcast”“Nationwide” no less” that the Plaintiff being a client of thebeacon *See exhibit (B) Plaintiff letter being a client”  Is in now fact a “nasty dog of a person who cannot hold hiscrap from his rectum or urine therefore and likes pissing all overthe Defendant property Marine Building L.L.C. and all over thecity of Houston Texas,
  49. 49. To include Plaintiff is a real panhandler derelict of sortswith “not a simple single purpose in life of any sorts” “But bum smokes and like dancing in the streets” Among other crude statements being made in saidcomplaint against (Christ et al) And the Defendant(s) herein collectively is entitled to aspecial grand “Hefty” $250,000.00 Dollars and the “Holy soupkitchen with all of its super support local. To include but not limited to the Federal Government legalsupport of the (Beacon) for the Plaintiff behalf is “Hereby fullyand forever close to boot” cause the Defendants lost somerentals and defendants “main property value” is now in the“Super Trash Can” and the reasoning is Plaintiff is nasty and loseon the City of Houston Texas. There for the City of Houston nowis official “Derelict Town USA”. And Plaintiff wishes to remind the Honorable Court all ofthis is base upon the actions of the Defendants et al in a hostilecivil suit against (Christ et al) for the relief of direct monetarycompensation in value of said whopper of a sum in excess of$250,000.00 But the Plaintiff is not a party…? Nor was the Plaintiffdamage in any form….?
  50. 50. First the Plaintiff Respectfully assert to the HonorableCourt..! (I really like to slid Arthur Esq. stupid face smoothacross the court room ninja style”, until it hit the Jury Box thenbounce off and fall asleep on the floor needing a deluxepackage ride to the local E.R. and you can have my “HonestOath” on that one) And then I will respectfully state before the HonorableCourt: 1. Defendant(s) collectively having placing them self on “Legal Death Row” by involving the Plaintiff in this nasty, disgusting, filthy, highly rude, acts for monies in a Federal criminal “mail and wire fraud scheme. (I am not stupid) 2. Notwithstanding total disgrace the Plaintiff before the eyes of god seeking hostile actions against a Holy Church in vain of and against the Plaintiff name, dignity, and will 3. And in doing this, said collective Defendant(s) herein further sought to attempting in stealing from a “Holy Church” $250,000.00 Dollars, with a permanent enforce closure on the “legal homeless soup kitchen operations” and take the Plaintiff name in vain no less among others with this actions also,
  51. 51. 4. Not with standing facts that the Plaintiff being a person whom already is in the need of no more “current legal problems in his name before a “Honorable Court” 5. And all these Defendants collectively wondering why..? The organizer /leader “Commander in Chief “Harry C. Arthur Esq.” in this collective “Mail and Wire Fraud scheme of thing complaint made against the Plaintiff rights, will and dignity being that (Arthur Esq.) personal face is not crumble, bleeding, and good –n- broken up..? I will tell you why for the following special reasons: 6. The Law that’s why… 7. My Doctor is the next reasoning whom having to supply Plaintiff medications in regards to this disrespectful dis- play for greed 8. *See Plaintiff Original Complaint with Original Medical Records on file at the Harris County Court House in Houston Texas in the Matter of: Louis Charles Hamilton II vs. Harry C. Arthur The Marine Building, L.L.C. et al 2009-80663 Plaintiff will respectfully strongly assert before theHonorable Court that the VAMC Mental Doctor is quit cable intelling the Honorable Court to his/her face information inregards to Plaintiff medical records and (Arthur et al)
  52. 52. disposition standing with the Pro Se Plaintiff” at the past andcurrent time frame. Plaintiff further refer the Honorable court *See Plaintiffexhibits attached in Plaintiff motion to secure commercialbusiness records among other things that facts showing (Arthuret al) each and every reply of Defendants collectively hereinconjure wrongfully against Plaintiff rights for said Deposition.To include Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) stating Plaintiff has directemotional Issues in their reply to hide the discovery deposition. The Plaintiff can show the Honorable Court that there isJustice the Plaintiff move to Houston Texas which the Plaintiffsupply the Defendant(s) all theses factories and Plaintiffreasoning for sought refugee in Christ Church Cathedral namelythe (Beacon) while Plaintiff render legal services to severalDefendants in order to escape from harm and pursue civilactions As described in Plaintiff exhibit (D) *Clerk’s Entry ofDefault. On a Murder for Hire Scheme to Kill the Plaintiff namelyLouis Charles Hamilton II in this Action also With attached copy of said Civil Complaint No. 1:10-CV-55*Plaintiff exhibit (E) in which those crooked Defendants thereinhaving any further criminal intent to even dream of entertaining
  53. 53. any guest appearance before the Honorable United StatesDistrict Court, Eastern District of Texas, Beaumont Division(Honorable Hang Judge) for all of the Illegal RICO Crookedcommitted to The Elderly, Senior Handicap, IRS, FEMA, PrivateInsurances Companies, to include but not limited to the Plaintiffpain, suffering and direct losses Which the Plaintiff Respectfully Assert the Defendantscollectively herein (Arthur et al) having been provided all of thesame exhibits during litigation in Harris County records whichDefendants collectively continue to execute a criminal schemeto still wrongfully described the Plaintiff in a nasty state withtheir strong condemning Proof of the Plaintiff Louis CharlesHamilton II being a “Derelict as described in their complaint andPlaintiff pursuit of any Federals actions means Plaintiff is a trueDerelict as described in (Arthur Esq.) reply to Plaintiff discoveryrequest. Yet these crooks forgot they are attempting to rip off(Christ et al) in the Vain of the Plaintiff name Plaintiff further assert that Plaintiff then further supplyDefendant(s) in (Arthur et al) The Plaintiff legal attempts atfurther escape from further harm, loss wages and pursue offurther civil justice as described in Plaintiff exhibit (F) Civilcomplaint made against (Trail et al) Federal Civil action No.1:09-cv-496 attached herein
  54. 54. While the Plaintiff is in further pursuit of lost income asdescribed in plaintiff exhibits (G) New Orleans civil action CauseNo. 1:09-cv-289 with the Honorable Court report andrecommendations of Dennis et al filed herein the exhibitsherein Plaintiff having in the past supplied same to Defendants in(Arthur et al) to attempt to salvage Plaintiff lost reputation atthe Hands of each and every one of the Collective Defendantsherein To include but not limited to the Plaintiff engaging in thecruel corruption already filed civil actions of the criminalinvolvements of “Doctor Samuel Benjamin Magnus LawsonM.D.” Against the rights, will, and dignity of the Plaintiff stupidsister Johanna Ann Magnus-Lawson (Hamilton) *See Backpage.com “Sherlock Holmes” mystery story: case of“The Prince Witch Voodoo Doctor” by: Louis Charles Hamilton II(Cmdr. Bluefin). But the Defendant(s) herein having defame and continualto do the same as stated to the point Plaintiff is in fact now aproven “Derelict” now for even being involved in any saidnumerous civil actions as described above in Plaintiff exhibit E,F and G Defendants reply to the Plaintiff in a legal set ofinterrogatories *See Plaintiff exhibit attached to Plaintiff motionto secure records. Arthur reply to Plaintiff interrogatories,
  55. 55. request for admission and Production of Documents. Which Plaintiff respectfully assert before the HonorableCourt said evidence was provided to Defendants collectively toconsider in making their choice of continual rash, rude, harshtreatments of the Plaintiff respect, rights for life, being now atthe hand of the defendants collective ridicule civil action. In fact the Plaintiff honest position both “past andpresent” is (Arthur et al) is full of “Fraudulent false fictitiousmassive “shifty bogus lying legal crap”. The Defendant(s) (Arthur et al) complaint against (Christ etal) was in the nature of seeking monetary relief for the so callproperty damages, and property value loss in lieu of Plaintiffalleged acts, Yet the Defendants collectively continue to disregard theirown “actual property value” by the Defendants onmismanagements mistake in Commercial Property up keeps byway of the following: k. The continual human waste already complain of still be- ing published and posted for over a 2 year period of time*See Plaintiff exhibit (P-1), photo in 2009
  56. 56. l. The continual mismanagements in the past drunken failed exterior painting project of the commercial prop- erty and any future up keep in this area being provided for over a period of 2 years. *See Plaintiff exhibit (P-2) photo in 2009m.The continual mismanagements in the safety in the fire escape extreme and needed up keep *See Plaintiff ex- hibit (P-3), photo in 2009n. The continual mismanagements in nasty restaurant trash simply left about on the ground for lots of rodents’ for over a period of 2 years *See Plaintiff exhibit (P-4) photo in 2009o. The continual mismanagements in the finances needed to provide for all of the extreme and well over due needs as described in paragraph a, b, c, and d above The continual human waste already complain of still being published and posted for over a 2 year period of time*See Plaintiff exhibit (P-1), photo in 2009p. The continual mismanagements in the past drunken failed exterior painting project of the commercial prop- erty and any future up keep in this area being provided for over a period of 2 years. *See Plaintiff exhibit the new 2010 series of pictures…. 
  57. 57. q. The pictures showing continual mismanagements in the safety in the fire escape extreme and needed up keep *See Plaintiff exhibit 2010 up dated r. The continual mismanagements in restaurant trash sim- ply left about on the ground for rodents’ for over a peri- od of 2 years *See Plaintiff exhibit 2010 up date s. The continual mismanagements in the finances needed to provide for all of the extreme and well over due needs as described in paragraph a, b, c, and d above with 2010 photograph up detail up date. t. With the Illegal Immigrants attempt at futile repairs Plaintiff was in fact both a direct and indirect party of allwrongful involvements as described by the Defendant(s) ownwording in the complaint against (Christ et al)And serious damages did in fact occurred by all of thecollectively hostile, extreme and outrageous acts and actions ofthe Defendants as described in the Plaintiff original Complaint,Amend Complaint, all motions and exhibits currently before theHonorable Court. With all Plaintiff mental medical records on file at theHarris County in support of the Defendant causing Plaintiffintentional emotional harm, complete sever mental anguish
  58. 58. Defendant(s) collectively sought Ultra Vires Acts in theircruel presentations made against (Christ et al) with claims of aprofound impact that the “Nasty Plaintiff” impose on the Publicinterest, health, and safety as described in (Arthur et al)complaint against (Christ et al) In addition the Defendants herein collectively sought toimpose a “less value of worth” towards the public impression ofthe Plaintiff base upon the complaint, while inciting racial hate,ridicule of a scheme for monetary funds against (Christ et al)thinking (Christ et al) is weak unprotected & meanwhile thescum Derelicts & panhandlers pose no threat and Are too stupid to under stand the Defendants hereincollectively Criminal RICO “Mail and Wire” Fraud Scheme ofthings for greed, and the Plaintiff too legal weak andunprotected cause he is street trash. Conclusion Plaintiff Amend Complaint states a long list of cause ofactions requiring the Defendant(s) collectively herein to be heldfully “responsible and most accountable” for all of thesecriminal and civil acts and actions described against the Plaintiffpeaceful rights, will, and dignity as described therein, Defendant collectively having cause enough “emotionaltrauma” and National disrespect to the Plaintiff Louis Charles
  59. 59. Hamilton II and rightfully so causing undue disrespectfulbehavior of the same criminal RICO “Mail and Wire nature toothers similarly the same. Not with standing giving the (Beacon) namely “ChristChurch Cathedral et al” a notable wrongful “black eye” in vainof the Plaintiff name Notwithstanding current exhibits with detail real facts ofall photograph evidence thus far being submitted, depicted andshowing Defendant(s) such collectively nasty, disgusting trailertrash nature in being professional Attorneys and Businessoperating out of Marine Building L.L.C.. Nasty, poor un-kept, rundown property waste conditions’ While these real dogs of a well organized syndicate stylecrooks label the Plaintiff among other things “nasty”. “A reputable lawyer will advise you to keep out of law,make the best of a foolish bargain, and not get caught again”. Mark Twain; Letter to Charles H. Webb, 8 Apr. 1875” Wherefore the Pro Se Plaintiff Louis Charles Hamilton II,moves now in this number above matter, Moves respectfully that the Honorable Court hereby do in
  60. 60. fact deny Defendant(s) herein the matter of defendants (Arthuret al) collective motions to dismiss the Complaint of the PlaintiffLouis Charles Hamilton II in its entirety with full extra specialprejudice, (With a added Sugar on Top) And for any and all other relief Pro Se Plaintiff herein seeksbeing awarded fairly in Justice before the Honorable Court. By; _____________________________ Louis Charles Hamilton II Pro Se Plaintiff P.O. Box 20126 Houston Texas 77225 The Plaintiff will show the Above entitled “Honorable Court” that in the past (PresidentAndrew Johnson) did willfully through his criminal version of Reconstruction did establish“Second class citizenship for the (Negro) Plaintiff herein (Louis Charles Hamilton II) BlackAfrican-American within the defendant (The United States of America and Co-Defendant (TheState of Texas) And the Defendant (The United States of America and Co-Defendant (The State ofTexas) continue holding the same “Second class citizenship upon the “Plaintiff in (Among otherThings) “Suit in Civil Common Law” . The Plaintiff assert before the Honorable Court that the Defendant (The United States ofAmerica) continue fearing that their political and social dominance is threatened in 2009 thoughout 2011, have continue turned to numerous illegal direct means to prevent (Negro) black

×