The contract clause of the US & Texas Constitution prohibits government involvment in a breach of contract complaint. Even if our Constitutions allowed it; speculation of a FUTURE breach of a contract does not constitute reasonable suspicion for government investigation, nor is it probable cause for a seizure of private property. The contract stipulates the intent of the parties. That is; in a law abiding State where State Actors honor their Oath to the Texas Constitution with voluntary compliance. This page shows that even the speculation used as a cover for crimes upon this Citizen were wrong.
The Broker and Agent had a good relationship for 9 months prior to the State's interference. An interference based on a speculation of what the Agent, and then the State as the basis of their actions, thought would be the Broker's future actions. They thought the Broker was going to pay his Office rent and, after doing so, would be unable to satisfy his FUTURE obligation to the agent pursuant to the terms of the Contract.
Their speculation was based on a PRIVATE letter from the Broker to the Office Manage. The Office Manager told the Agent of this letter and gave him a copy of it. A copy he took the State's Actor, the Prosecutor. A letter the Prosecutor presented at trial with the assertion it was proof of the Broker's intent to not pay the Agent.
BUT THEY MISREAD THE LETTER!
The letter refers to the closing of a sale that will take place at Stewart Title. It also gives the name of the person at the Title company, their phone number, as well as the names of the agents for the Buyer. The broker even provided the address of the property being sold.
NONE of these correspond with the sale the agent took part in. The commission check from that sale was NOT at Stewart Title. It was at the Veterans Administration because it was a VA foreclosure. If the closing had been at Stewart Title the commission check would have been from Stewart Title. The commission check from the VA was a US Treasury Check! And the address of the property the Agent said he sold was different from the one in the letter.
The documents proving it was the sale made by the Broker that is referred to in the letter:
- The contract for the sale referred to in the
Letter. A sale made solely by the Broker.
sale of 10835 Sugar Hill
- The escrow check deposited
with Stewart Title.
- The letter from the Seller's to the Title Company instructing the payment of $5,000 of the Seller's proceeds to the Broker, in addition to his commission on the sale, for other services rendered.
The documents of the sale the Agent took part in, closed at the VA:
- The contract from sale with agent
participation. 2611 North Greens Road
- Addendum showing amount of commission and Broker's name along with the Agent's name.
Rather than admit their error the State's Actor, the prosecutor, entered this letter hoping, correctly, the Jury would not pay attention to the pro se defendant and, without careful reading of the letter, assume if the prosecutor presented it then it must be proof of the Broker's future intentions.
THIS IS NO DIFFERENT THAN THE CONCEALING OF EVIDENCE IN THE MICHAEL MORTON CASE.