In three motions filed before the Hopkins County Court at Law by Attorney Chad Cable on behalf of George Lawrence Bergin and his desire to regain custody of hundreds of head of cattle seized by the SPCA of Texas and Hopkins County Sheriff’s Deputies, Bergin through his attorney states that the court denied the defendant’s motion to dismiss on account of the courts complete abrogation of the rules of civil procedure, requests that the court exclude states evidence and announced his non-participation. Judge Amy McCorkle Smith had not ruled on the motions as of noon Friday and the court proceeded with jury selection and the trial immediately following the selection of the jury.
In one motion, Bergin complained by written motion that Hopkins County Court at Law has no jurisdiction over the issues in the controversy. He stated that the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas (Sherman Division) has proper jurisdiction of the issues in controversy. He also noted “The State’s purported statutory authority (Health and Safety code Chapter 821) is an aberration wholly inconsistent with all other Texas statutes and rules defining jurisdictional and procedural fairness. He states the County Court at Law has denied all of the Defendant’s pleas for basic protections afforded citizens in every other area of American jurisprudence.
In another motion, Bergin states that the State intends to present evidence which was obtained by search warrants that are devoid of any specificity and were issued without any showing of probable cause.
An additional motion stated the court had denied his motion to dismiss and/or stay the procedure based on jurisdictional grounds. Bergin objects to the proceedings based on “The Texas Health and Safety Code does not trump the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure. He states in the motion: “Defendant is about to be put to trial on an issue that imperils hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of livestock, yet has not notice as to which, if any, of the Texas Rules of Civic Procedure are to be recognized.” The motions states that no complaint nor citation affording defendant of the most basic notice and preparation rights. He says there are no established Rules of Court, Civil or Criminal, to be employed by the court. The motion states the discovery rules are completely ignored in a rush to government taking of property with less due process than is afforded traffic ticket defendants, all pursuant to an aberrant statue completely at odds with all other state and federal standards of due process.
Judge Smith will review the motions and rule on them. Until then, the trial proceeds.