From Ronald F. Avery


January 19, 2006

Tavie Murphy Tax Assessor/Collector, et al;

307 W. Court Street
Seguin, Texas 78155


Dear Ms. Murphy,

This is Notice to You and your office of the declaration by the TEXAS STATE SUPREME COURT that the “Public School Financing Scheme” imposed throughout Texas is unconstitutional in violation of Art 8 Sec 1-e. No. 04-1144 Shirley Neeley, Texas Commissioner of Education, et al, APPELLANTS, v. West Orange-cove Consolidated Independent School District, et al., APPELLEES w/ 05-0145 w/ 05-0148 which may be read at internet link:


This is Notice to You that well established law does not provide immunity for any one who imposes, enforces, or attempts to impose or enforce unconstitutional ‘laws.’

This is Notice to You that it is well established that an unconstitutional ‘law’ is void from the time of its inception not from the time it is eventually declared unconstitutional.

This is Notice to You that I should not have been charged, the “Unconstitutional Public School Taxessince at least 1992.

This is a DEMAND that YOU not CHARGE or ACCEPT any amount of “money” for the financial support of the Seguin Independent School District (SISD) or (SSG).

Because I want to avoid being confrontational or an ignorant victim of unlawful plunder, I have included herein a summary of the findings of the 117 page Opinion of the Supreme Court (referenced above with the internet link) with elements of a lawsuit if I am injured any further.



Ronald F. Avery
1955 Mt. Vernon

Seguin, Texas 78155


Summary of Texas Supreme Court Opinion of 11/22/05

Finding the present “Free Public Education Funding Scheme Unconstitutional”


1.      The Texas Supreme Court (TSC) found that the present funding scheme did not violate Article 7 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution.

1.1.   They found that education was “efficient, adequate, and suitable” meeting all their perceived standards set by Art 7 Sec 1.

2.      However, the TSC did find that the present funding scheme did violate Art 8 Sec 1e.

2.1.   When a large number of school districts were taxing at or near the maximum amount of the cap ($1.50/$100 valuation) set by the Texas Legislature, the districts were deprived of “discretion” in the tax rate to charge, thereby the tax constituted a uniform state wide ad valorem tax violating Art 8 Sec 1e.

3.      The TSC delayed the lower court injunction to stop ad valorem taxation for funding of education until July 1, 2006 thereby in their minds permitting the continuance of unconstitutional taxation until the state could come up with an alternate scheme for funding free public education.


Summary of the Issues of a Lawsuit to be filed if Ronald F. Avery

Is damaged any further by “unlawful unconstitutional taxation”

As the Supreme Court of Texas Opinion invited individuals of Texas to file as of 11/22/05


1.      The ruling of the TSC does not reflect fundamental Constitutional logic. The TSC has made a ruling in which no one can determine when the system became unconstitutional or when the same system would become constitutional if the rate of taxation were increased. A fundamental constitutional law is not one of degree but of principle. Does the ad valorem tax become unconstitutional when 10, 23, 45, 68, 79, 84, 97, or 100 percent of the districts tax at or near the $1.50 per $100 valuation of the property? The TSC has made their court indispensable in determining when the system is lawful or not, for no other man can figure it out. There is no provision in the Constitution for constant intervention by the TSC to determine the lawfulness of public school funding.

2.      Tax on the rent or produce of land or the rent of homes and other buildings is lawful but taxation upon the ownership of the same land, homes and buildings is not lawful because the sole purpose of work is the obtaining of private property in which man has a God given right to obtain and use for his own personal benefit without paying anyone or anything an annual fee to keep. The sole purpose of government is the protection of that property consisting of life, liberty and possessions. A tax that threatens the ownership of property cannot be lawful. A tax cannot threaten that which the government is to protect by placing a lien upon the same with power to transfer the ownership to others. Even in monarchial Europe only Holland taxed the ownership of property which proved too harsh:


“In the province of Holland every house is taxed at two and a half per cent of its value, without any regard either to the rent which it actually pays, or to the circumstances of its being tenanted or untenanted. There seems to be a hardship in obliging the proprietor to pay a tax for an untenanted house, from which he can derive no revenue, especially so very heavy a tax. In Holland, where the market rate of interest does not exceed three per cent, two and a half per cent upon the whole value of the house must, in most cases, amount to more than a third of the building-rent, perhaps of the whole rent”[1]


3.      Article 8 Sec 1e1 is constitutional law and reflects the principles of property the forefathers knew and designed the constitutions to create and follow:


No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State.”


4.      Article 7 Sec 3e is not constitutional law and is contradictory to Art 8 Sec 1e:


“The Legislature shall be authorized to pass laws for the assessment and collection of taxes in all school districts and for the management and control of the public school or schools of such districts, …., and the Legislature may authorize an additional ad valorem tax to be levied and collected within all school districts for the further maintenance of public free schools, and for the erection and equipment of school buildings therein; provided that a majority of the qualified voters of the district voting at an election to be held for that purpose, shall approve the tax.”


5.      Article 7 Sec 1 places the sole job of free public education upon the state not its local communities or districts:


“A general diffusion of knowledge being essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people, it shall be the duty of the Legislature of the State to establish and make suitable provision for the support and maintenance of an efficient system of public free schools.”


6.      The job of state wide education has been placed upon the state and the state has been forbidden to levy an ad valorem tax upon any property within the state of Texas. Therefore public free schools in Texas cannot be funded by an ad valorem tax upon any property within this state.

7.      Art 7 Sec 3e was created to get around Art 8 Sec 1e and is unconstitutional and should be declared so by the TSC.

8.      The delay of an injunction to stop unlawful unconstitutional taxation until a lawful funding system can be discovered by the legislature is not fundamental law nor can any court have such power to authorize unlawful acts by a stay of injunctions. Injunctions are to prohibit unlawful activity and therefore a stay of injunction to permit criminal activity is unlawful and unenforceable in Texas.

9.      Therefore the TSC stay of injunction until July 1 to permit unlawful taxation to continue until that time is unlawful and unconstitutional on its face.

10.  This same unlawful ad valorem taxation system in Texas can be shown, by a letter from Ann Richards, to be unconstitutional since 1992, and since the TSC did not tell us the exact time in which it became constitutional or unconstitutional since then, we must conclude that it has been unconstitutional and unlawful from at least that time.

11.  The TSC also found that the present public free school system did not violate Art 7 Sec 1 and that it met all the standards of “efficient, adequate, and suitable,” required under said article.

11.1.                    The TSC conveniently left out what public free schools really are to accomplish, i.e., “the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people.”

11.2.                    This most expensive school system that threatens the ownership of property in fact does not teach the students any fundamentals or principles of property that will preserve the liberties and rights of the people.

11.3.                    These fundamentals propagated for over 300 years by Rev Samuel Rutherford in his book Lex Rex, Algernon Sidney in his book Discourses on Government and John Locke in his book Two Treatises of Government and many others since are not taught to students in Texas nor are the students tested on these principles at any time prior to graduation.

11.4.                    Therefore, instead of “no student left behind,” we have “all students left behind” in a system that violates Art 7 Sec 1, and Art 8 Sec 1e.

11.5.                    The proof of this is the fact that we are today at this late hour having this statewide debate over the failure of the funding system to provide for free public education. The nature of “free state education” is obviously not understood by the elected representatives of the citizens.

11.6.                    Further proof is that I personally donated the only copy of the Texas Constitution to both the Navarro High School and the Seguin High School in 1997, an interesting fact covered by the Seguin Gazette Enterprise.

12.  Therefore, it is not the lack of “discretion” permitted in taxation that has led to this crisis in public education but the permission of local discretion to enhance what should be a uniform austere state wide education. Public free education should be absolutely the same in every community paid for by state funds alone without any supplement from the local communities.

12.1.                    The permission of locals to enhance and embellish their local school system to any degree they can afford makes the “poor districts” want the same and forces all districts to share endlessly until the resources of the citizens  have been exhausted as evidenced by this present crisis.

12.2.                    A state education should have a uniform basic curriculum that is general and covers the essentials that will preserve the liberties and rights of all students and people in Texas.

12.3.                    If a person wants to embellish their education they can go to a private school or apprentice their self to those they want to learn from. Or, corporations can provide training centers to educate those who are interested in working for them.

13.  For more information on unlawful property taxes see


Certificate of Service


I, Ronald F. Avery, did mail (Certified Receipt Requested #7099 3220 0001 5083 3479) on the _____ day of ____________, 2006 this Formal Notice and Demand to the following:

Tavie Murphy Tax Assessor/Collector

307 West Court Street

Seguin, Texas 78155



Ronald F. Avery


[1] Smith, Adam 1727-1790,  Wealth of Nations1776  (Prometheus Books 59 John Glenn Drive, Amherst, New York 14228-2197 1991) 516