This Web Site has Three (3) Parts:

  1. Left Hand Menu: The Avery v. Murphy et al lawsuit, concluded as of January 16, 2008.
  2. Right Hand Menu: The ongoing attempt by citizens to obtain judicial access to the current Texas Constitution. You may learn all about how you are being cheated out of trillions of dollars by 10 Banks (#8 RH Menu) and how the courts keep citizens from correcting the law (#3 RH Menu) and how the public schools are unlawfully indoctrinating students to harm your property by reading the right hand links from #3. Also learn how the School District lawsuits against the State of Texas will not result in lawful funding or curriculum for Public Education.
  3. The third part is a new screen showing Avery's property tax protest and appeal to the District Court, 4th Court of Appeals and now the Supreme Court of Texas showing that ad valorem property taxes are feudal and repugnant to the common law that should have been instituted in the Texas Constitution making them a criminal offense. Access available now at:
    Avery's Appeal of the rulings of the Guadalupe County Appraisal District to The 25th State District Court in Seguin, Texas, the 4th Court of Appeals in San Antonio, Texas, and the Supreme Court of Texas.

Avery v. Murphy:

“Property tax” is an oxymoron for the definition of property is that the owner need not pay any money to possess it or occupy it or ask permission of any concerning what they can do with or on their property. Therefore, if you own property you pay no tax to any nor ask anyone what you may do on it. “Property tax” is rent charged by the state against the tenant. America was built upon the idea that all property consisting of life, liberty and possessions belongs to the citizen not the state, its subdivisions or a federation of states. People owning property create the state to protect their property. There can be no lawful tax on life, liberty or property. Property tax is a "statist" idea that is not lawful in America.

Cause of Action:

Plaintiff, Ronald Avery, sued Tavie Murphy, Guadalupe Co. Tax Office and the Seguin Independent School District for taking money from Avery for use by the free public schools in Texas without a law under Article 1 Section 17 of the Texas Constitution. The Supreme Court of Texas on 11/22/05 ruled that the ad valorem taxes charged to property owners in 2005 for the support of free public schools constituted a State ad valorem property tax which is forbidden under Article 8 Section 1e.


The Supreme Court in 2005 based their decision on the notion that if the taxes charged by local areas become uniform across Texas the tax becomes a state ad valorem property tax which is forbidden under Art 8 Sec 1e1 of the Texas Constitution. Avery, however, claims that any ad valorem tax on private property collected for a state function is a state ad valorem property tax forbidden under Art 8 Sec 1e. Article 7 Section 1 of the Texas Constitution says “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.” Therefore, the provision and maintenance of free public schools in Texas is not a local duty to be paid for or supplemented by the local areas or districts or counties etc. And Article 8 Section 1e1 says “No State ad valorem taxes shall be levied upon any property within this State.” Therefore, public free schools in Texas cannot be paid for or supplemented with an ad valorem property tax. Avery’s main claim is that, it is not the amount of the tax or its degree of uniformity or its assessment that makes a State ad valorem tax but the function that the tax is applied to. In fact the Supreme Court has mandated a contradiction by saying that local ad valorem taxes supporting schools should be non-uniform yet produce a uniform education through out Texas. This is absurd.

How to use:

There are three ways:

  1. The most grueling: Read it all starting at number 2 on the left menu all the way down.
  2. The long method: Read the Plaintiff’s First Amended Original Petition (# 18 on the left menu) starting with paragraph 17 and then read Seguin ISD Amended Plea to the Jurisdiction (#16) which is identical to Murphy and GCTO Plea to Jurisdiction (#19). Then read Plaintiff’s Response to Amended Plea (#17). Then read Trial Court’s dismissal of lawsuit (#21). Then read Appellant’s Brief to the Forth Court of Appeals in San Antonio (#27).  Then read Appellee’s Brief (#29). Then read Appellant’s Reply Briefs (#31 & #32).  Then read Fourth Court of Appeal’s Memorandum Opinion (#35). Then read Appellant’s Petition for Review at the Texas Supreme Court (#36). Then read Denial of Petition for Review (#41).
  3. The best and short Method: Read Fourth Court of Appeals Memorandum Opinion (#35). Then read Appellant’s Petition for Review at the Texas Supreme Court (#36). Then read Denial of Petition for Review (#41).

Impact on Public Policy:

People ask, “How, then, are we to pay for public school?” The problem is, that the State is trying to “teach all things to all people,” which is the exercise of authority they do not possess. They only have our delegated authority to teach the fundamental principles of property “essential to the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people” (Art 7 Sec 1). Not every thing taught today in public school can be said to preserve the liberties and rights of the people. In fact most of it obscures those liberties and rights or advocates the opposite. Therefore, public free schools should be identical through out all of Texas teaching only the Principles of Property for the preservation of the liberties and rights of the people and it should be supported by a uniform tax applied all across Texas in conformity with Article 8 Section 1a.

Since Legislators are talking about privatization of public education they can now lease portions of the schools to private corporations to teach appropriate technologies while the State retains the principles of property to protect the liberties and rights of the people. This preserves the right curriculum for the correct parts of society. The people of Texas should not trust private corporations to teach the principles of property to protect the liberties and rights of the people and why should private citizens pay for training workers in companies? Private Citizens should pay for only those things that protect their own property. All this can be corrected by the proper suit and the application of the present laws of the land.


The 11/22/05 Opinion of the Supreme Court generating the Special Session of the Texas Legislature to come up with a lawful way to fund “free public schools” in Texas expressed the notion that ad valorem taxation on land and buildings is not a way to support public schools: “Each case must necessarily turn on its own particulars. Although parsing the differences may be likened to dancing on the head of a pin, it is the Legislature which has created the pin, summoned the dancers, and called the tune. The Legislature can avoid these constitutional conundra by choosing another path altogether.”

Under the present state of Supreme Court rulings in Texas no one knows when the local ad valorem property tax becomes an unlawful State ad valorem property tax. This is absurd. Under Avery’s suit, if ruled upon correctly, this can be repaired forever so that the citizens and tax collectors can know how to avoid the courts and know immediately when an unconstitutional tax is charged and all can immediately resist it. The present situation is unfair to all including the tax collectors and the school system which cannot stay up with the current false propaganda mandates without bankrupting the citizens and seizing all their property.

However, Avery is not attempting to tell any public authority how to do anything or how to exercise their authority or attempting to interfere with it. Avery is merely asking the court to prevent the Defendants from violating the Constitution to his damage. Further, all should be able to comment on public policy as it relates to the law, which alone, cannot interfere with the operation of those in authority and this conversation is the exercise of guaranteed First Amendment rights.


Have fun here considering the fundamental laws of property and authority as it applies to the limits of taxation imposed on government by the people. The power of government is limited by that held in the people and that applies to taxation and curriculum as well.
Read the hearing transcript here or click on #20 on the left menu.



Now that this case has been “disposed” by the Supreme Court of Texas we can analyze their decisions to try to see if they have used good law and logic to dismiss this case:


  1. The Trial Court dismissed this case by granting the “Plea to the Jurisdiction” for all Defendants and all issues. As is typically done the Court does not reveal the basis of their decision.
  2. Avery appealed the Trial Court ruling to the Fourth Court of Appeals which issued a Memorandum Opinion (#35 Left Menu) that said Avery did not and could not show that he had been injured in a unique way from all his fellow citizens.
  3. Avery then filed a “Petition for Review” in the Supreme Court of Texas complaining that:
    1. The “unique injury rule” of precedent to close the courts to a Article 1 Section 17 claim violates another Texas constitutional provision, namely, Article 1 Section 13.
    2. The use of the “unique injury rule” as it applies to “inverse condemnation” cases does not apply to the claim of a direct taking of property without a law.
    3. The use of mere statutes made by the legislature and erroneous judicial precedents to deny living breathing individuals the constitutional protections without a statewide vote required under Article 17 of the Texas Constitution is unconstitutional.
    4. Fictions such as school districts cannot be magically bestowed with the constitutional rights of living breathing persons by the judiciary.
  4. The Supreme Court “Denied” Avery’s Petition for Review.



The results of this suit is that we all learn that individual citizens cannot get constitutional protections guaranteed under the Texas Constitution to obtain compensation for their injuries because of bogus unconstitutional judicial precedents. We can also discern the bogus logic being applied to the citizens when they attempt to procure these constitutional protections under the “unique injury rule:”


  1. The courts tend to think that the judiciary has no role in an issue where all the citizens are injured along with the complainant.
  2. The courts tend to think that the citizen if injured in common with all others must seek the “democratic” process of influencing the legislature to pass laws that would change the wrong.
  3. This simply is an erroneous view that is not in keeping with the Texas Constitution as the role of the judiciary is to act as a separate and distinct branch of the government to correct the executive and the legislature when they are wrong and in violation of the constitution.
  4. But the judiciary does not exercise their own authority and have joined with the legislature and executive to oppress the people and protect the government officials that harm and plunder the whole society.

Ruling in a Nutshell:

  1. Avery sues state officials for charging taking money without a law, that is to say charging and collecting what the defendants called a “tax.” But they did not have authority to charge and collect that money because there is not law providing for that “tax” and in fact that kind of a “tax” is forbidden in Article 8 Section 1-e of the Texas Constitution.
  2. The Trial Court dismissed Avery’s lawsuit for several possible reasons. The Fourth Court of Appeals affirmed the Trial Court ruling based upon their finding that Avery did not and could not show a “unique injury” separate from that of his fellow citizens and therefore had no standing to bring the lawsuit proving that the so-called “tax” was not lawful.
  3. The so-called “unique injury” rule of precedent is based upon the idea that citizens should not use the courts to interfere with the lawful authority of elected officials in the execution of their duties and their lawful discretion. This Avery did not argue with. But Avery showed and proved that the defendants did not have lawful authority to assess, charge, or collect a “tax” upon the property of Avery for the purpose of funding public education in Texas. Article 8 Section 1-e forbids a tax on property for any state function. Therefore Avery could not interfere with authority that the defendants did not have. The unique injury rule is to prevent citizens from suing their public servants because they simply don’t like what they are doing with the lawful authority they have. Therefore, the so-called “unique injury” rule did not apply to Avery’s lawsuit. But his case was dismissed and the dismissal was affirmed at both the Appellate and Supreme Court level.
  4. Therefore, the courts are closed to individuals to correct the Legislature and State crimes if the crimes are committed against all citizens. If the State rules that the left hand should be amputated from all citizens, no individual or group of individuals could bring a suit to challenge that ruling and obtain damages as none of them were harmed in a unique way separate from their peers. Is this judicious thought and principle or just a crude and disgusting attempt to protect the State when they plunder the people’s property?