Petition for Writ of Prohibition - Filed - Supreme Court of Texas

IN THE TEXAS SUPREME COURT
CAUSE NO. _______________
IN RE: NEWTON B. SCHWARTZ, SR.
Relator
Original Proceeding from the
157 th Judicial District Court of Harris County, Texas
Trial Court Cause No. 2007-54957
Trial Court Cause No. 2009-11689
PETITION FOR WRIT OF PROHIBITION
NEWTON B. SCHWARTZ, SR., Pro se
TBN: 17869000
KELLY W. KELLY, Co-counsel
TBN: 24041230
1911 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77098
Telephone: (713) 630-0708
Facsimile: (713) 630-0789
ORAL ARGUMENT REQUESTED

IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL
Relator certifies that the following is a complete list of the parties, the
attorneys, and any other person who has an interest in the outcome of this matter.
PARTIES
COUNSEL
RELATOR:
Newton B. Schwartz, Sr., pro se
Newton B. Schwartz, Sr. TBN: 17869000
Law Office of Newton B. Schwartz, Sr.
1911 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77098
Tel: (713) 630-0708
Fax: (713) 630-0789
Kelly W. Kelly
TBN: 24041230
Law Office of Newton B. Schwartz, Sr.
1911 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77098
Tel: (713) 630-0708
Fax: (713) 630-0789
Martina E. Cartwright
TBN: 00793475
c/o Law Office of Newton B. Schwartz, Sr.
1911 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77098
Tel: (713) 630-0708
Fax: (713) 630-0789
OF COUNSEL
Real Party in Interest:
Commission for Lawyer
Discipline
Cynthia W. Hamilton
Senior Appellate Counsel
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
P. O. Box 12487
Austin Texas 78711-2487
Tel: (512) 427-1350
Fax: (512) 427-4167
i

Respondent:
Honorable David Scott
Brabham
Honorable David Scott Brabham
Presiding Judge
Gregg County 188 TH Judicial District
Court
ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
IDENTITY OF PARTIES AND COUNSEL ............................................................ i
TABLE OF CONTENTS ........................................................................................ iii
INDEX OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv
ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES 1 .................................................................... 1
CONCLUSION ....................................................................................................... 12
1 Relator adopts by reference his previously filed (by permission of this Court’s Clerk on June
16, 2010, Ms. Claudia Jenks) his Appendices, Statement of the case, Statement of Jurisdiction,
Issues Presented, Introduction and Statement of the Facts filed in his May 27, 2010 for Writs for
Mandamus, Prohibition and Injunction; and he adopts by reference his contemporaneously filed
herewith Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
iii

INDEX OF AUTHORITIES
Tilton v. Marshall
925 S.W.2d 672, 674 (Tex. 1996) ......................................................................... 2, 6
Texas Employer Insurance v. Kirby
152 S.W.2d 1073 (1941) ........................................................................................... 4
Smith v. State of Texas
490 S.W.2d 902 (TexCivApp.-Corpus Christi Dec 29, 1972) ................................. 5
Jones v. Strauss
800 S.W.2d 842, 844-845 (Tex. 1990) (per curiam) ................................................ 7
O’Quinn v. State Bar
763 S.W.2d 397 (Tex. 1988) ................................................................................... 11
Superior Diving v. Jay Watts
Cause No. 08-30423 (2010 WL 1287035 (CA5(LA)) April 2, 2010 (not for
publication) ............................................................................................................. 11
TEXAS CONSTITUTION
Article 5 § 3 ............................................................................................................... 8
TEXAS RULES OF CIVIL PROCEDURE
Rule 165a (1) and (2) ............................................................................ 1, 3, 5, 12, 13
TEXAS RULES OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE
Rule 52.9 ................................................................................................................... 1
TEXAS RULES OF DISCIPLINARY PROCEDURE
Rule 3.02 .......................................................................................1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 12, 13
iv

Rule 3.07 ................................................................................ 1, 3, 4, 5, 6, 10, 12, 13
Rule 3.08B ............................................................................................. 1,3, 5, 12, 13
Rule 3.14 ................................................................................................................... 8
Rule 15.05 ..................................................................................................... 3,4, 9, 12
TEXAS DISCIPLINARY RULES OF PROFESSIONAL CONDUCT
Rule 7.03(a)(b)(c) ........................................................................................ 10, 11, 12
TEXAS STATUTES
GOVERNMENT CODE
§ 22.221(a) ................................................................................................................ 8
TREATISES TEXAS VIOLATION CODE
Dorsaneo ................................................................................................................... 8
v

ARGUMENTS AND AUTHORITIES
I. Background and Proceedings in the Trial Court
It is now, six and a half years after this Court last amended, per its order of
December 29, 2003, effective January 1, 2004, its Texas Rules of Disciplinary
Procedure (RDP) Rules 3.02 and 3.07 and 3.08B incorporating Texas Rules of
Civil Procedure (TRCP) 165a, effective January 1, 2004 and Administrative Rule
61. Relator is before this Court seek extraordinary relief to apply each of them
now on (1) this Writ of Prohibition and (2) Relator’s concurrently filed:
1. Petition for Writ of Mandamus, which was denied originally on June 4, 2010
and is subject to Relator’s pending Motion for Rehearing per Texas Rules of
Appellate Procedure (TRAP) 52.9, filed June 15, 2010 2 ; and
2. All Relator’s pleadings in his Petitions for Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition
and Injunction filed on May 27, 2010, along with his 1,639 page Appendix,
including Exhibits “A”-“BBB”, inclusively, are all adopted by reference as if again
set forth verbatim herein 3 ; and
2 Relator adopts by reference his previously filed (by permission of this Court’s Clerk on June
16, 2010, Ms. Claudia Jenks) the Appendices, Statement of the case, Statement of Jurisdiction,
Issues Presented, Introduction and Statement of the Facts Exhibits “A”-“BBB”, filed in his May
27, 2010 for Writs for Mandamus, Prohibition and Injunction; and he adopts by reference his
contemporaneously filed Petition for Writ of Prohibition.
3
See fn. 2 above.
1

3. Relator’s Petition for Writs of Mandamus, Prohibition and Injunction and
Exhibits “A”-“BBB”, filed on May 27, 2010, are adopted by reference and
incorporated herein for all purposes, as if again set forth verbatim 4
1. As held by this Court in Tilton v. Marshall, 925 SW 2d 672, 674 (Tex.
1996), a writ of prohibition directs the lower court to refrain from acting, including
for lack of jurisdiction here, from proceeding after being timely objected to per
Rule 3.02. While Relator’s pending Petition for a Writ of Mandamus seeks to
command Hon. Judge David Scott Brabham (“Judge Brabham” hereinafter), to
cease and desist from acting, the purpose of this Petition for Writ of Prohibition is,
as set forth below is to prohibit Judge Brabham from acting further or exercising
power for lack of jurisdiction to do so.
2. Judge Brabham has presently scheduled to act and exercise jurisdiction on
July 6, 2010 in Court in Harris County, by his setting a first Status Conference.
(See Relators (a) pending Motion for Rehearing on his Petition for Writ of
Mandamus, adopted by reference herein along with Relator’s May 27, 2010 filings
and Appendix (Exhibits)); and (b) his contemporaneously filed Petition for Writ of
Injunction. The purpose of Relator’s petitions for writs, including this Petition for
Writ of Prohibition are to prevent Judge Brabham from acting or exercising
4
The Clerk of this court acknowledged, on June 15, 2010, that Exhibits “A”-“BBB” in the above
Relator’s, May 27, 2010 filed copies of said Appendix consisting of 1,639 pages, received
thereto, need not be refilled with this Petition and Relator’s accompanying Petition for Writ of
Injunction, contemporaneously filed herewith.
2

jurisdiction; and/or in the alternative, his above petitions for writs of mandamus
and injunction here for this court to dismiss the proceedings in compliance with
this Court’s RDP Rule 3.07, and Rule 3.08B, both incorporating T.R.Civ.P. 165a
(1) and (2) and its Administrative Rule 61:
Here, alternatively, by this Petition for Writ of Prohibition, Relator seeks
this court’s order to prohibit Judge Brabham from acting further below, per his
appointment, by reason of his having been timely objected to per this Court’s
mandatory Rule 3.02 Texas Rules of Disciplinary Procedure (hereinafter “RDP”).
And see RDP 15.05
, both effective January 1, 2004 and his lacking further authority or jurisdiction to
act or rule or hold his scheduled status conference on July 6, 2010.
3. This Court could not have made its intentions clearer that it did in its
excerpted attached Order of December 29, 2003 effective January 1, 2004
amending Rules 3.02, 307 and 15.05:
“…3.02 Assignment of Judge: Upon receipt of a Disciplinary
Petition, the Clerk of the Supreme Court shall docket the same and
promptly bring the Petition to the attention of the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court shall promptly appoint an active judge who does
not reside in the Administrative Judicial Region District in which
Respondent resides to preside in the case. Should the judge so
appointed to be unable to fulfill the appointment, he or she shall
immediately notify the Clerk of the Supreme Court, and the Supreme
Court shall appoint a replacement judge. The judge appointed shall be
subject to objection, recusal or disqualification as provided by law
under the Rules of Civil Procedure and objection, as provided by law,
through. The objection, motion seeking recusal or motion to
3

disqualify a motion must be filed by either party not later than sixty
(60) days from the date the Respondent is served with the Supreme
Court’s order appointing the judge, provided that,. Iin the event of
objection, recusal or valid objectiondisqualification, the Supreme
Court shall appoint the a replacement judge within thirty (30) days of
the order of recusal...” Supreme Court of Texas Misc. Docket No. 03-
9209 Amendments to the Texas Rules of Disicplinary Procedure,
December 29, 2003
“…3.07 Trial Setting: The court shall set each Disciplinary Actions
shall be set for to commence the trial on a date not later than 180 days
after the date the answer Diciplinary Petition is filed with the district
clerk, except for good cause shown. If the Respondent fails to
answer, a default may be taken at any time appropriate under the
Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. No motion for continuance,
resetting, or agreed pass may be granted unless required by the
interests of justice. Mandamus lies to enforce this rule upon the
petition of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel or the Respondent.
Supreme Court of Texas Misc. Docket No. 03-9209 Amendments to
the Texas Rules of Disicplinary Procedure, December 29, 2003
“…15.057 Effect of Time Limitation: The time period provided in
Sections Rules 2.10, 2.12, 2.15, 2.17C, 2.17e, 2.17P, 2.25, 3.02, 2.09,
2.10, 2.15(B), 2.15(F), 2.19, 2.20, 3.04, - 4.05, 7.11, 8.06, 2.02, 9.03,
10.02, and 11.01, 11.08 and 12.06(d) are mandatory. All other time
periods herein provided are directory only and the failure to comply
with them does not result in the validation of an act or event by reason
of the noncompliance with those time limits…” Supreme Court of
Texas Misc. Docket No. 03-9209 Amendments to the Texas Rules of
Disicplinary Procedure, December 29, 2003
4. This Court’s 69 year old opinion in Texas Employer Insurance v. Kirby, 152
SW 2d 1073 (1941), held that a writ “prohibition” is appropriate only in aid of
previously invoked jurisdiction. Even if arguendo still so limited, this Court’s
jurisdiction has been previously invoked by its:
4

a. This Court has acted per RDP Rule 3.02 in appointing Judges Bonnie
Leggat Hagen and now Judge David Scott Brabham, respectively; and
b. Other acts required by its Rule 3.02; and
c. In addition to this Court’s assumption of jurisdiction per its Rule 3.02
above, it acting through its Clerk per Rule 3.03, who is required to file the
following:
“…shall promptly forward the Disciplinary Petition(s) and a copy of the Supreme
Court’s appointed Order (per Rule 3.02) to the district clerk of the county of
alleged venue…”
d. Per the 1,639 page Exhibits “A”-“BBB”, Appendices and Record filed
herein, per its mandatory Rule 3.07 requests that:
“…Disciplinary Actions shall be set for trial on a date not later
than 180 days after the date the answer is filed…”
RDP 3.08B adopting T.R.Civ.P. 165a(1) and (2) and this Court’s
Administrative Rule 61, further supports this requirement.
5. The extension and enlargement of this Court’s original prohibition
Jurisdiction and that of the intermediate Courts of Appeals to issue writs of
prohibition appears to have been originally used extensively in State Bar
disciplinary cases such as Relators here.
Smith v. State of Texas, original prohibition action, 490 S.W. 2d 902
(TexCivApp.-Corpus Christi Dec 29, 1972) (NO. 742), writ refused n.r.e. 5
5 Motion Denied by
Smith v. State, 500 S.W. 2d 682, (TexCivApp.-Corpus Christi 1973) (NO. 848)
and Appeal After Remand
Smith v. State, 513 S.W. 2d 949, (TexCivApp.-Corpus Christi 1974) (NO. 911)
5

The Corpus Christi Court of Civil Appeals held as is relevant here:
“…The writ of prohibition as used in Texas has three principal functions…and (3)
prohibiting a trial court’s action when it affirmatively appears that the court lacks
jurisdiction…”
“…This leaves only the third function for consideration…”
“…Its purpose in this case must be relegated to a determination from the record,
that the trial court lacks jurisdiction…”
Relator’s writ of prohibition sought in this court is to prevent, i.e., prohibit
Judge Brabham, trial court from exercising:
(a) Jurisdiction or interfering with the jurisdiction of this Court’s primary function;
and
(b) To restrain a lower court to its proper jurisdiction; and
(c) As in Smith ante, Relator here seeks to prevent Judge Brabham from acting
outside of, or in excess of, his jurisdiction. He has none, since 30 days after being
timely objected to on April 6, 2009 or by May 8, 2009, Tilton, ante 925 S.W. 2d.
472, 676 at p. 4.
6. It is submitted that on this lengthy Record and Appendix filed, Judge
Brabham is exceeding his jurisdiction per this court’s Rules 3.2. and 3.07 ante, by
commencing his exercise of jurisdiction on July 6, 2010.
and Appeal After Remand
Smith v. State, 523 S.W. 2d 1 (TexCivApp.-Corpus Christi 1975) (NO.911), writ refused n.r.e.
6

7. This Court has conditionally issued its writs of mandamus and prohibition to
prevent a(nother) trial court from interfering in pending attorney grievance
proceedings. (This) even though an appeal was not pending and the trial court was
not attempting to decide an issue previously decided by the Court [see e.g., State
Bar of Texas v. Jefferson, 942 S.W. 2d 575. 576 (Tex. 1997)].
8. In another case, this Court (originally), at first, denied an original request for
a writ of prohibition against a trial judge, because there was then no indication that
the judge would, on remand from the appellate Court, relitigate matters decided by
that Court. This Court granted a later application for the writ of prohibition in the
same case when it became clear the judge would reach issues previously decided
by this Court in that case [Jones v. Strauss, 800 S.W. 2d 842, 844-845 (Tex.
1990)—per curiam]).
Here there is and has been no outside judicial interference in Relator’s case
ever, by Relator and/or any other state court district judge or other state court (or
federal court), as has occurred in the past in other cases.
Here Judge Brabham is proceeding to act on July 6, 2010, by ordering a Status
Conference, which customarily, results in this issuing a scheduling order. His
predecessor appointee, Judge Honorable Bonnie Leggat Hagan did neither, ever
during her fifteen month tenure, Appendix Exhibit “A”-“BBB” ante.
7

9. Confusion has sometimes arisen as to the demarcation line between writs of
(1) prohibition and (2) Writs of Mandamus by this Court and/or the Courts of
Appeal.
A recognized authority, William V. Dorsaneo, III 6 , suggests and Relator here
adopts it and files both of his above alternative petitions because of overlap (and in
fact, all three writs seeking relief out of an abundance of caution), as follows:
“...Therefore, if a relator seeks to invoke the original jurisdiction of the Texas
Supreme Court to control the actions of a lower court when those actions do not
constitute an interference with the previously invoked jurisdiction of the Texas
Supreme Court, the petitioner should probably seek a writ of mandamus as well as
a writ of prohibition in the same proceeding. This conclusion also is compelled by
a consideration of the constitutional and statutory foundation for issuance of
original writs, other than mandamus, by the Texas Supreme Court [Tex. Consti.
Art. 5§3] and the courts of appeals [Govt. C § 22.221]…” (all emphases added
throughout).
10. Relator has amply demonstrated his requisite lack of an adequate remedy at
law and that he faces irreparable harm. This is best illustrated by the lengthy
Record and Appendix (1,639 pages), filed May 27, 2010 and adopted by reference
above, (pending on Motion for Rehearing as to his concurrent Petition for Writ of
Mandamus):
a. This Court’s current RDP (Rules of Disciplinary Procedure) 3.14,
both deny him on his appeal from any final judgment of disbarment 7 , after a jury
6 Distinguished Faculty Fellow and Professor of Law, Dedman School of Law, Southern
Methodist University, “Dorsaneo”, in his treatise “Texas Litigation Guide” 2010, “Original
Proceedings Legal Background” at pps. 152-53; Sections 152.03(2)
8

verdict, either a stay and/or supersedeas from either the trial district court’s
judgment of disbarment or an order revoking probation (effective January 1, 2004),
mandatory (per RDP 15.05) per Relator’s Writ of Mandamus filed May 27, 2010,
and including the 1639 page Record and appendix ante; and
b. Relator has faced thirty-three months of irreparable harm by published
continuous public disparagements which include absolutely privileged
republications of his above pending Disciplinary Disbarment Petitions and
proceedings. Relator’s publicly filed Answers and Responses showing proof of his
innocence of the same do not at all mitigate the public disparagement and harm
affecting by him and his relations with his clients who are exposed to this. He
nonetheless continues to face a barrage of absolutely privileged publications; such
will no doubt continue until final disposition of these cases. This, despite the fact
that no client of Relator’s, in 56 years has ever lost 1¢, etc.; and
In the nearly three years since the civil publicly filed Original and Amended
disciplinary petitions including prayer for disbarment of Relator disparage him,
such are regularly and readily used indiscriminately by opposing counsel as well as
competing and other trial lawyers to absolutely, legally and permissibly disparage
Relator. Such disparaging republications are all absolutely privileged.
7 Or from an “order revoking probation of a suspension from the practice of law cannot be
superseded or stayed”.
9

This is documented insofar as is possible in Relator’s Appendix and Exhibits,
1,639 pages above filed May 27, 2010.
10a. That is why this Court’s mandatory Rule 3.07 (briefed fully, filed May 27,
2010 and adopted by reference herein from his accompanying Petitions for Writ of
Mandamus, Injunction and Prohibition were jointly filed May 27, 2010.
This
was the first time Relator sought relief in this Court for thirty-three months.
Relator, see fn.1 at p.1, expresses his appreciation to this court and its clerks
for calling to his attention on June 16, 2010, that his filing May 27, 2010, joint,
triple filing of all three Petitions, had to be refiled, procedurally filed separately.
Hence, these three separately filings, on May 27, 2010 and now, (these two
additional Relator’s petitions writs of prohibition and injunction
contemporaneously filed herewith; each adopts the other by reference in true
interests of judicial economy.
b. Relators’ clients are numerous. Almost all involve personal injury and death
cases. Out of all these clients, CLD (State Bar) has singled out only two for
allegations of improper solicitation in alleged violation of Texas Disciplinary
Rules of Professional Conduct (DR 7.03(a)-(f) effective (January 1, 2005).
c. One complaint was not by the client, Mr. Charles Touchet, but by a
disgruntled, second in true order of two former, prior attorneys in Louisiana, Mr. J.
Quentin Simon.
That case settled, in federal court more than a year ago. The
10

same client has now been re-injured offshore in the Gulf of Mexico and he again
retained Relator to file his new Jones Act case. It is filed in the 61 st District Court
of Harris County, Texas; Cause No. 2010-29699, filed May 11, 2010; Charles
Touchet v. Phil Guibeau Offshore, Inc.
d. The other client complainant, Mr. Jay Watts, is represented by his
instigating complainant attorney here, Mr. Robert O. Homes of Mississippi. It has
been mired in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals for more than a year; Superior
Diving v. Jay Watts Cause No. 08-30423 (2010 WL 1287035 (CA5(LA)) April 2,
2010 (not for publication). It has yet to be remanded to and set for a jury trial in
the Eastern District of Louisiana, where Watts’ above attorney filed a legal
malpractice case against Relator and another Texas attorney more than two years
ago in State Court in Mississippi. It is now remanded and transferred back to the
original Eastern District of Louisiana 8 .
11. Watts is the one remaining of these 2 of 4 false allegations (as Texas
Disciplinary Rules of Professional Conduct) DR 7.03, improper solicitation
charges, that triggered and enabled Relator to have standing to accept this Court’s
1988 invitation and challenges, raised sua sponte, by this Court in O’Quinn v.
State Bar of Texas; 763 S.W. 2d 397 (1988). Relator has developed and presented
8 C.A. 05-0197; Superior Diving v. Jay Watts; In the Eastern District of Louisiana (New
Orleans)
11

the full factual evidentiary Record filed herein on May 27, 2010 and applicable in
all three of Relator’s Petitions ante.
12. These constitutional issues include CLD’s systematic, discriminatory,
impermissible, selective enforcement of DR 7.03 ante. This violates both Relator’s
Texas and federally protected, constitutional privileges and immunities enumerated
therein (Exhibits “A”-“BBB” May 27, 2010), under O’Quinn ante. These can be
addressed now, if necessary here, after rulings on Rules 3.02, 3.07, 3.08B and
15.05, rather than defer them to a trial judge and jury, after a full evidentiary
hearing. They are raised here for determination as a matter of law, should this
Court reach them.
b. But, both of this Court’s above Rules 3.02 and 3.07 are dispositive and
determinative of all matters here. Finally, the facts are largely, if not totally, not
disputed or disputable below by CLD.
There is no judge duly exercising
jurisdiction then and now because of by operation by law enforcing this Court’s
mandatory Rule 3.02 ante, timely and properly invoked by Relator.
13. Relator’s writs seeks alternatively this writ of prohibition, injunction, as well
as mandamus relief in seeking this Court’s enforcement of its mandatory RDP (1)
Rule 3.02 ante, and (2) Rule 3.07 as supplemented by its RDP Rule 3.08(B), which
is further supplemented by its this Court’s Administrative Rule 61 and (2)
T.R.Civ.P. 165(a)(1) and (2).
12

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Relator seeks issuance of this
Court’s writ of Prohibition herein prohibiting Judge Brabham from acting
hereinafter by reasons of timely objections to him per RDP Rule 3.02 ante, and/or
b. Dismissal because CLD has failed to timely “set for trial” or prosecute
either of its cases per Rule 3.07, incorporating Rule 3.08 and it in turn T.R.Civ.P.
165a (1) and (2); and/or no good cause excusing its noncompliance has been filed
or shown; and
c. The Court’s administrative Rule 61; and
d. To dismiss the proceedings below; and
c. For all other relief to which Relator shows himself entitled, in the
alternative, under his three pending Petitions for Writs of Mandamus on rehearing ,
prohibition and/or injunction.
Respectfully submitted,
/s/ Newton B. Schwartz, Sr.
NEWTON B. SCHWARTZ, SR., Pro se
TBN: 17869000
Kelly W. Kelly
TBN: 24041230
1911 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77098
Tel: (713) 630-0708
Fax: (713) 630-0789
Of counsel:
13

Martina E. Cartwright
TBN: 00793475
c/o 1911 Southwest Freeway
Houston, Texas 77098
Tel: (713) 630-0708
Fax: (713) 630-0789
14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been served
on all known parties in accordance with Texas Rules of Appellate Procedure on
this 21 st day of June, 2010.
/s/ Newton B. Schwartz, Sr.
NEWTON B. SCHWARTZ, SR.
Cynthia W. Hamilton VIA CMRRR 7005 3110 0002 8081 7825
Senior Appellate Counsel
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
1414 Colorado
Austin, Texas 787010
Shannon Breaux Sauceda
Office of the Chief Disciplinary Counsel
State Bar of Texas
600 Jefferson, Suite 1000
Houston, Texas 77002
VIA HAND DELIVERY
Hon. Judge David Scott Brabham VIA CMRRR7005 3110 0002 8081 7832
188 TH District Court
101 E. Methvin, Suite 408
Longview, Texas 75601-7236
Honorable Greg Abbott VIA CMRRR 7005 3110 0002 8081 7849
Attorney General
300 W. 15 th Street
Austin, Texas 78701
15

STATE OF TEXAS §
§
COUNTY OF HARRIS §
VERIFICATION
Before me, the undersigned Notary Public, on this day personally appeared,
Newton B. Schwartz, Sr., who, after being duly sworn, states under oath that he is
the Relator in this action; that he has read the Petition for Writ of Prohibition
above; and that every statement contained in his above Petition for Writ of
Prohibition is within his personal knowledge and are true and correct.
___________________________
NEWTON B. SCHWARTZ, SR.
SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO BEFORE ME, on ______ to certify
which witness my hand and official seal.
___________________________
NOTARY PUBLIC IN AND FOR
THE STATE OF TEXAS
My commission expires:__________
16