In a later, unrelated case, Leo Itz once again wound up in front of Judge Sam Sparks.
LEO ITZ
VS.
STATE OF TEXAS, DAN MORALES,
CITY OF FREDERICKSBURG, et aL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
NO. A 99 CA 078 SS
Filed: May 19, 1999
ORDER
Oh, Leo, Leo, why do you write so crazy?
Is it because you want your contentions hazy?
You send all local, state, and federal problems to this jurisdiction
And then react to its procedures, calling its existence a fiction.
You annoy government officials and citizens alike
Making them incur legal expenses - and that's not right.
Sanctions and judicial warnings do not lead you to reason.
You continue to play games in this Court like a sporting season.
You now have ten days to dismiss this lawsuit with an apology,
Or Rule 11 will come down on you with a sanction from me.
The case will be remanded to Fredericksburg for further review,
And the United States Marshal will execute the new sanction on you.
So, take your chance quickly and ask to stop this federal litigation
And go back home to your country, wherever, and face the real situation.
BE IT REMEMBERED on this the 19th day of May 1999, the Court reviewed the file in the above-captioned matter and specifically the Motion for More Definite Statement [pleadings filed March 1, 1999] and all other ridiculous pleadings by the plaintiff Itz. This lawsuit apparently involves three tickets given to the plaintiffItz for traffic violations, including a driving violation that Mr. Itz has no driver's license and no insurance, as required by law, and was driving a vehicle without registration. Thereafter, the City of Fredericksburg, enforcing the state law, required Mr. Itz to stand trial and he, as his past and history will reflect, attempts to remove criminal cases to this Court and sue all persons within the city limits of Fredericksburg, Texas, who he can identify that has anything to do with any of his contentions. That's what this lawsuit's about, and counsel for the defendants need not file any more motions for more definite statement, but can simply file appropriate motions to dismiss and for attorney's fees and sanctions, as the case was improperly removed, and the parties are improperly sued. The plaintiff Itz has been adjudicated guilty of the criminal offenses and his design is to appeal those convictions and, therefore, this Court has no jurisdiction over any issue involved in this case with the exception of sanctions against Mr. Itz if this lawsuit is not dismissed within thirty days of the date of this order. This order is notice under Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this is a frivolous lawsuit and the signing of these allegations (as well as filing it) by Mr. Itz is without foundation either in fact or the law; the allegations are intended simply to interfere with the administration of justice; and to misuse the law and its courts aw well as to harass anyone who confronts Leo Itz with the necessity of compliance with the laws in this state or country.
SIGNED this the 14th day of May 1999.
Sam Sparks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
A later order in the same case:
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
AUSTIN DIVISION
LEO ITZ
vs.
STATE OF TEXAS, et af.
NO. A 99 CA 078 SS
Filed: June 30, 1999
ORDER
BE IT REMEMBERED on this the 30th day of June 1999 the Court reviewed the file in the
above-captioned matter and thereafter makes the following findings and order.
The plaintiff Leo Itz files herein his pleading titled "RE: ACCEPTED FOR VALUE and EXEMPT from TAXES" which was received by the Court on June 7, 1999. The plaintiff asks the Court to provide him with a copy of the Fiduciary Tax Estimate and the Fiduciary Tax Return covering this matter and states "[s]ince the account is accepted for the value by me and is EXEMPT from LIEN/LEVY, the same is pre-paid." The Court has absolutely no idea what Mr. Itz is referring to; however, this incomprehensible pleading, in light of the tortured history of Itz's extensive litigation in federal court, makes one thing perfectly clear: Mr. Itz has not gotten the message that he must stop filing frivolous motions and lawsuits.
In February 1999, the plaintiff filed a "Petition for the Removal in the Nature for the Writ of a Habeas-Corpus and Counter-Complaint" of three lawsuits from the municipal court of the City of Fredericksburg and attempted by "counter-complaint" to sue the State of Texas; the former Attorney General of the State of Texas; the Municipal Court of and the City of Fredericksburg, Texas; a municipal judge; a city attorney; chief of police and four police officers; county sheriff and two county jailers; the mayor of the City of Fredericksburg; and six jurors. On February 5, 1999, the plaintiff attempted to file the pleadings in this lawsuit "informa pauperis," and this Court denied the same on the grounds that the pleadings were wholly frivolous and this Court had no jurisdiction to accept the removal and, further, the allegations themselves, if deciphered correctly or if deciphered at all, clearly show no cause of action for which any relief could be granted against any of the proposed defendants. The plaintiff then promptly paid his filing fee and advised the Clerk that he would prepare his own "form of summons" and declined to use any of the Court's summonses. Apparently, Mr. Itz received three tickets from a police officer in the City of Fredericksburg for driving without a driver's license, having no insurance, and for having no registration on the vehicles. Notwithstanding his refusal to accept notices and mail, a jury trial was ultimately held and he was adjudicated guilty by a jury verdict and the judge. Thereafter, he filed his gibberish and nonsensical pleadings in an attempt to remove the three cases from the municipal court to this Court, rather than wisely spending his money for an appeal bond and appealing the cases to the county court where he would have judicial review or a de novo trial. The writ of habeas corpus, of course, makes no sense as Mr. Itz was present in the courthouse filing the petition and was not in custody at the time of his filing.
Mr. ltz has a long history of litigation in this Court. Beginning in 1983 in Cause No. 83-CA-427, the Itzes sued the United States of America in an attempt to avoid payment of income tax. This litigation was followed up in 1986 in Cause No. 86-CA-623 styled Itz, et al. v. The TaxCourt and the Internal Revenue Service. Then, in 1987 in Cause No. 87-CA-122, the Itzes were involved in litigation styled United States of America v. John Montgomery, et al. In 1988 in Cause No. 88-CA-554, the Itzes were involved in a lawsuit styled Smith, et al. v. United States of America, and in this case a judgment was entered against the Itzes. In 1992, the Itzes filed suit in Cause No. A-92-CA-345 with the same type of nonsensical claims alleging an application for habeas corpus and suing the United States of AmericalInternal Revenue Services and two individuals seeking a stay of execution of the judgment rendered in A-88-CA-554, which cause was concluded by dismissal and sanctions in the amount of$I,OOO, which no record shows was paid. In 1994, the Itzes filed a lawsuit, A-94-CA-57, attempting to remove a forcible entry and detainer case from the Justice of the Peace Court in Gillespie County in a case where an unlucky resident had purchased the property of the Itzes at an Internal Revenue sale and had attempted to obtain possession of the property from the Itzes following a jury trial in the Justice of the Peace Court of Gillespie County. This lawsuit was dismissed and remanded back to Gillespie County with sanctions in the amount of$I,500. Again, there is no record that the sanctions were ever paid. Then, in 1997 the Itzes filed a civil lawsuit in Cause No. A-98-CA-744 where again an attempted removal from the Justice of the Peace Court in Gillespie County was made. This lawsuit was simply another sequence of an unlucky individual purchasing at an Internal Revenue Service tax sale of property owned by the Itzes subject to federal liens and following an unsuccessful trial (from the Itzes' standpoint) in the Justice of the Peace Court in Gillespie County. In each of these lawsuits, any innocent bystander within a half a mile of Mr. and Mrs. Itz were sued, received summons, had to retain attorneys, and, of course, substantial tax monies were consumed by the Attorney General's Office having to represent state, county, and city officials as well as governmental units.
In an order entered February 11, 1999, the Court found that Mr. Itz was attempting to abuse the legal process by appealing a municipal court conviction in the state court, over which this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction. The Court further found that the purpose of Mr. Itz in filing these lawsuits is to delay the legal process, to cause taxpayer expense and individual liability expense to all those who had any role in the conduct that Mr. Itz does not like. For example, it is clear that the prosecutor, judge, and jurors would have absolutely no liability of any nature in this case as a matter oflaw, yet Mr. Itz sues them and would require them to obtain counsel to come into this Court and file pleadings to defend themselves. The Court then fined the plaintiff $1000.00 for his frivolous removal.
In an order of May 19, 1999 in this case, the Court warned the plaintiff that additional sanctions would be forthcoming unless the plaintiff dismissed the above-styled cause within thirty days. Instead of complying, the plaintiff continues to file nonsensical pleadings. An increased sanction hopefully will convey to the plaintiff that the Court means business.
Accordingly, the Court enters the following orders:
IT IS ORDERED that all claims and/or causes of action against defendants the State of Texas, Dan Morales, the Municipal Court for the City of Fredricksburg, Katherine Peake, Pat McGowan, Javier Sanchez, Herbert Vorauer, Steve Wetz, Annette Loth, Dennis Rhoten, Mike Jennings, John Debose, Hector Numuz, Milton Jung, Linda Langerhans, Kevin Carter, Lyia Balero, Joe Bell, Patricia Ontiveroz Bill, Nancy Louise Cook, Elizabeth Ellebrach, and Helen Fairholm are DISMISSED;
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the above-styled cause is REMANDED to the Municipal Court for the City of Fredericksburg as this Court has no subject matter jurisdiction in this case; and
IT IS FINALLY ORDERED that all costs and sanctions in the amount of $2000.00 (two thousand dollars) are adjudged against Leo Itz in favor of the City of Fredericksburg for which let execution issue.
SIGNED this the 30th day of June 1999.
Sam Sparks
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
