*The $2 donation request is from the website, not me & is NOT necessary to sign!

 Jasper County, TX Citizens per our Constitutional and statutory rights are demanding & petitioning for the elimination of the locally administered & forced collection of ad valorem property taxes in Jasper County. We are demanding an immediate investigation and removal of Jasper County Appraisal District Chief Appraiser, Lori Barnett and the Board of Directors. We are demanding our duly elected representatives REPRESENT the PEOPLE of Texas who are and ELIMINATE property taxes and Texas CAD Mafia’s.

*This petition is concerning the legality & constitutionality of the administration, assessment and collection of ad valorem property taxes in Jasper County, TX. This petition is not a protest of individual property appraisals or bills.

Be it known, since inter-governmental oversight of the Jasper County Appraisal District has been ineffective with no correcting actions initiated or enforced by the Legislature, elected officials, County court, the board of directors or appraisal review board, nor the state comptroller’s property tax assistance division- it’s justifiable that we as the Citizens and taxpayers of Jasper County, Texas exercise our legal Constitutional right to bring forth this petition against the abuses of the Jasper County Appraisal District Chief Appraiser, Lori Barnett, in her official capacity, along with the Jasper County Appraisal District (JCAD) Board of Directions, JCAD Appraisal Review Board members, Jasper County Judge and Commissioners in their official capacities, and each of the taxing entities who employ their services, each in their official capacities for their separate roles in those elected or appointed positions for engaging in the scheme to defraud taxpayers via the ad valorem property tax scheme. The current policies of administration and methods of assessment and collection of property taxes are unequal, unconstitutional, discriminatory and illegal based on factual evidence. Furthermore, their callous disregard for the budgets of hardworking, lower, middle, and fixed-income families who are being taxed out of their homes within Jasper County proves they do not reflect our values, do not have the Citizens best interests at heart, and are not fit for civil service in this capacity. Each respective entity, board member and administrator chooses to remain willfully blind to the intentional abuses of the daily operations, enforcement and forced collection of property taxes. The conflict of interest and contempt of the ARB is clearly evident.  We are demanding the immediate investigation and removal of Chief Appraiser, Lori Barnett. In addition, we are also demanding the removal of the current JCAD board and ARB members. We are demanding that you hear our pleas to eliminate the locally administered and collected ad valorem property taxes. Lastly, Jasper County tax payers are demanding that our elected local government officials remain true to their oath of office and remember that they work for the Citizens of the County and not the other way around.

LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE

TITLE 3. ORGANIZATION OF COUNTY GOVERNMENT

SUBTITLE B. COMMISSIONERS COURT AND COUNTY OFFICERS

CHAPTER 87. REMOVAL OF COUNTY OFFICERS FROM OFFICE;

Sec. 87.013.  GENERAL GROUNDS FOR REMOVAL.  (a)  An officer may be removed for:

(1)  incompetency;

(2)  official misconduct;  or

(3)  intoxication on or off duty caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage.

(b)  Intoxication is not a ground for removal if it appears at the trial that the intoxication was caused by drinking an alcoholic beverage on the direction and prescription of a licensed physician practicing in this state.

THE TEXAS CONSTITUTION

Bill of Rights ARTICLE 1. Sec. 2.  

INHERENT POLITICAL POWER; REPUBLICAN FORM OF GOVERNMENT.  All political power is inherent in the people, and all free governments are founded on their authority, and instituted for their benefit.  The faith of the people of Texas stands pledged to the preservation of a republican form of government, and, subject to this limitation only, they have at all times the inalienable right to alter, reform or abolish their government in such manner as they may think expedient

To disregard Constitutional law, and to violate the same, creates a sure liability upon the one involved: "State officers may be held personally liable for damages based upon actions taken in their official capacities." Hafer v. Melo, 502 U.S. 21 (1991).

Petition:

This petition is for the immediate investigation and removal of the Jasper County Appraisal District Chief Appraiser, Lori Barnett, the removal of the current JCAD and ARB board members and the elimination of the locally administered and collected ad valorem property tax based upon the following facts and allegations:

Conspiracy to commit fraud 
Fraud
Willful intent to defraud 
Forgery
Falsifying documents 
Abuse of power 
Discrimination 
Unethical behavior 
Incompetence
Official misconduct 
Unequal appraisals
Arbitrary appraisals
Improperly acquiring & using data
Collection of unlawful taxes

Abusive, Biased and Discriminatory: 

The current JCAD operations and the results of are unconstitutional, discriminatory, biased, abusive and excessive. These are not merely baseless claims, these claims are based upon factual data of arbitrary and unreasonable assessments and personal experiences which will be attached for review. Shamefully it’s operation is most abusive and discriminatory to the elderly, disabled and to our Veterans. It’s also abusive to those living in the most rural areas of the County and to those living in minority neighborhoods/communities who are also heavily discriminated against. Commercial properties, certain “elite” residents and certain classes of properties have not sustained the same abusive increases at the same rate as those in more rural areas of Jasper County or those in minority areas. Jasper County has more rural residents who are multi-generational property owners and farmers who are long-term inhabitants/owners and have no means to maintain property in pristine marketable condition or have the intent to sell. The long-term inhabitants and those with non-income producing property are those most abused by the current CAD methods. Limited-resource individuals have been forced out of their homes by the forced collection of these abusive property taxes on frequent occasions. Coincidentally, those who have ties to JCAD, taxing entities and other local government operations have personally benefited from these property seizures. 

Personal Gain:  

Personal gain comes in many forms and is frequently disguised and hidden from public scrutiny. Some examples include insider information, manipulation, personal business relationships, contract awards, surplus giveaways, the intentional misinterpretation of so-called guidelines or policies and through salaries and fringe benefits. The most obvious of the personal gains have been through the acquisition of County contracts and tax deed properties resulting in many of our local officials and their cronies becoming quite the real estate and mineral investors.

Unequal, Unfair and Arbitrary Appraisals:

The Texas Constitution provides that "Taxation shall be equal and uniform. All property shall be taxed in proportion to its value, which shall be ascertained as may be provided by law." It further provides that county assessors are not free to "adopt a lower or different standard of value because the same is to serve as a basis of taxation.” The actual state of assessment equalization bears zero relationship to the statutory and Constitutional requirements. In addition to inaccuracy in valuation, the Constitutional promise of uniformity and equality within counties, cities, school districts, and all other taxing districts has not been realized. Residential properties throughout Jasper County with the same characteristics, within the same neighborhoods and areas, and in the same property classifications and having other similarities are appraised unequally. Brick, wood, stone, vinyl, single story or two story, single or double wide mobile homes-they’re all appraised differently with unequal methods. Low-value properties face higher tax assessments, relative to their actual sales price or market value, than do high-value properties, resulting in regressive taxation that disproportionately burdens lower-income residents. Vacant lots and undeveloped acreage are unequally appraised as well. Most commercial properties are significantly under appraised and do not see the same increases in values compared to residential properties. There’s multiple properties throughout the County with multiple Homestead exemptions with the same married or family household owners or having a Homestead exemption in another County. There’s also multiple AG and Timber special valuations within the city limits and on commercial properties that shouldn’t be there. Many commercial properties are not listed as commercial properties, yet homeowners have storage sheds and metal shop buildings classified as commercial buildings on their field cards. Certain officials, board members, businesses and others do not see the same increases as “regular folk”. These same people have even seen significant decreases while others see significant increases. (None of these comparisons have anything to do with new updates to improvements as JCAD will be quick to try and say.) Some of these same people have never paid taxes on their property and haven’t even had a penalty applied. Some businesses have been over $40k behind in taxes and had their penalties removed and no further action taken to seize their property-while homeowners don’t get that same special treatment. 

Tax exempt properties not currently operating or that haven’t been in operation for years are still benefiting from not paying property taxes, which is a violation of the tax code. Certain Churches often have for-profit gatherings, public and private events in which a fee is charged while retaining nonprofit tax exemptions. 

Personal Property Assessments: 

JCAD is illegally and arbitrarily over assessing personal property. Non-income producing personal property is exempt from taxation. The salient characteristic of personal property is its movability without damage either to itself or to the real estate to which it is attached. Personal property by its nature is not permanently attached and therefore is movable. According to research and with speaking with real estate agents, storage sheds, well houses, portable freestanding carports, lawn decorations, animal pens, etc. not permanently attached by a foundation or plumbing to the real estate-which have all been previously taxed at the time of purchase-are all moveable personal property belongings and do not add to real estate value per real estate appraiser guidelines.

Appraisal Review Board:

The Appraisal Review Board is supposed to be a separate and impartial board, it is not. There seems to be a major conflict of interest within the board and very evident contempt when we protest our appraisals. Several ARB members are real estate developers who have taken full advantage of tax deed property seizures for their own personal benefits. Property owners are treated unfairly and spoken to in an unprofessional and condescending manner, often disregarding and contradicting our proof of information and being cut off mid sentence, while appraisal district employees present in the protest are treated with the utmost of importance and respect and their documentation is given priority. Comparison properties via JCAD for the ARB, are more times than not, over 10-15mi and more away from the subject property, cherry-picked to reflect the values they need. The entire process is operated with a take-it-or-leave-it type attitude and what the ARB says is the Gospel.  

 

 

Jasper County is not Angelina, Jefferson Hardin or Harris County:

The market and demand for housing in Jasper County is not nearly on the same level, in any way, including demand and extreme rising market values as they are in larger and more economically advantaged and urban Counties such as Angelina, Jefferson, Hardin or Harris Counties. In fact according to the US Census and other factual data, Jasper County has decreased in population and is not growing nearly as fast as our local government. Jasper County has ample rental units, multiple low income housing and both residential and commercial real estate for sale. Some of the same properties currently listed have been up for sale for years. If anything, the only demand would be for more affordable rentals, not low income housing-but that is unattainable given the current obscene property taxes that are passed on to the renter.

Annual reappraisals:

Per statutory requirements, appraisals only have to be redone once every three years. The annual mass appraisals by JCAD are arbitrary and the cost of performing this mass appraisals costs more than the newly discovered revenue it may locate. Board approval for reset of periodic to three years is sufficient to comply with statutes. The January 1 provision of Sec. 23.01 is not specific as to each or any subsequent “January 1” year(s). Ergo a January 1 within a three year interim is satisfactory for 23.01 compliance. The statute(s) relative to property tax appraisal frequency says: “Tax Code Section 25.18 Sec. 25.18. Periodic reappraisals. (a) Each appraisal office shall implement the plan for periodic reappraisal of property approved by the board of directors under Section 6.05(i). requires appraisal districts to reappraise all property in its jurisdiction at least once every three years...”

Sec. 23.01. Appraisals generally. (a) Except as otherwise provided by this chapter, all taxable property is appraised at its market value as of January 1.

Policy and Administration: 

The governing rules and policies and the administration of those policies are arbitrary and abusive. The district is ran by the Chief Appraiser who, based on personal knowledge experiences and factual evidence associated with the policies and assessments, is biased, unknowledgeable and incompetent to lead the JCAD. She has abused her limited power on numerous occasions. Employees are not trained to be knowledgeable of the Code, laws or Constitutional limits of the Code. Rules and guidelines are contradicted and changed accordingly to fit the current agenda. Laws are being broken and information and documentation is being tampered with, altered  or altogether removed. Properties are being omitted, exemptions granted illegally, and more.

The appraisal district is based on minimum standards for administration, operation and oversight—purposely. JCAD supposedly operates according to the standards and compliance under the Uniform  Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice of the Appraisal Foundation (USPAP), International Association of Assessing Officers (IAAO) code of Ethics and Standards of Professional Conduct. However, as shown in several studies and based on factual evidence, they fail to even meet these standards most of the time. Even worse, nobody will accept or administer consequences for their abuses-not even our Legislators that created them will admit or accept any liability in the operation, administration or oversight of the appraisal district. 

In my opinion, which was based upon a multitude of protections within both our state and federal Constitution, state laws and legal case facts, the entire property tax scheme of assessment and the forced collection of these taxes has been based on fraud resulting in an unconstitutional taking. 

What is the purpose of an appraisal district? What governmental service do they provide on behalf of and to Citizens? None. The purpose of an appraisal district is to assess taxable property for the benefit of those taxing entities collecting ad valorem taxes. They do not provide any public or governmental service. 

The Texas Tax Code Sec. 6.01 states:(a) An appraisal district is established in each county. (b) The district is responsible for appraising property in the district for ad valorem tax purposes of each taxing unit that imposes ad valorem taxes on property in the district (c) An appraisal district is a political subdivision of the state.

What is the definition of a political subdivision and on what Constitutional or legal basis are appraisal districts considered to be political subdivision of the state? There is no Constitutional basis. 

Definition of political subdivision (1) In general. The term political subdivision means an entity that meets each of the requirements of paragraphs (c)(2) (sovereign powers), (c)(3) (governmental purpose), and (c)(4) (governmental control) of this section, taking into account all of the facts and circumstances, or that is described in published guidance issued pursuant to paragraph (c)(5) of this section. Entities that may qualify as political subdivisions include, among others, general purpose governmental entities, such as cities and counties (whether or not incorporated as municipal corporations), and special purpose governmental entities, such as special assessment districts that provide for roads, water, sewer, gas, light, reclamation, drainage, irrigation, levee, school, harbor, port improvements, and other governmental purposes for a State or local governmental unit.2) Sovereign powers. Pursuant to a State or local law of general application, the entity has a delegated right to exercise a substantial amount of at least one of the following recognized sovereign powers of a State or local governmental unit: The power of taxation, the power of eminent domain, and police power.

The appraisal district is supported by a percentage of funds from each taxing entity based on the amount of taxes each entity collects.  Should our property taxes be used to support appraisal districts? No, it’s restricted by the US Constitution. 

It has been concluded that the intent of the people who adopted the constitution was to deny the state and its political subdivisions the power to levy and collect ad valorem taxes except as expressly provided in the constitution. Intermediate appellate court opinions have stated in dicta that the Legislature may permit a political subdivision to levy an ad valorem tax only pursuant to express constitutional authority. The court in Texas Municipal Power Agency, discussing the Legislature's creation of a political subdivision without ad valorem taxing power, such as the appraisal district, stated that "[t]he restrictions on the power to levy ad valorem taxes found in the Constitution necessarily limit the power of the legislature to create municipal corporations or political subdivisions to be supported by ad valorem taxation." State ex reI. Grimes County Taxpayers Ass 'n v. Tex. Mun. Power Agency, 565 S.W.2d 258,271 (Tex. Civ. App.-Houston [1st Dist.] 1978, writ dism'd); 

Sovereign Immunity is a common law creation. Just because appraisal districts are declared political subdivisions of the state, contrary to modern common law assumptions and bad case law interpretation, it does not give them sovereign immunity. Which of the three defining sovereign powers do appraisal districts have? None.

 Contrary to what local governments would have us believe and the chopped interpretation, by others, the Eleventh Amendment limits the jurisdiction only as to suits against a State, not a political subdivision. It was implied only through common law. Immunity under the Eleventh Amendment is an attribute of the State only in its corporate sovereign capacity; if our complex society necessitates delegation of certain tasks to independent agents for the State, the rationale of the amendment does not dictate its extension to them as well." S.J. Groves & Sons v. New Jersey Turnpike Auth., 268 F. Supp. 568, 579 (D.N.J. 1967). Likewise, even when "the state" itself undertakes a purely proprietary, as opposed to governmental, function, it may be immune from suit, see, e.g., Murray v. Wilson Distilling Co., 213 U.S. 151 (1909). Its subdivisions performing strictly governmental functions directed by the state, however, will not be granted immunity. Lake Country Estates, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency, 440 U.S. 391, 401 (1979)}

What about a political subdivision in both the pension and the civil employee and public finance legal context? Are appraisal district employees, including the chief appraiser considered to be civil employees entitled to certain fringe benefits? No. 

Tax Code Section 414(d) of the Code defines a governmental [pension] plan as “. . . a plan established and maintained for its employees by . . . any State or political subdivision thereof . . .”  Notice 2015-07 cites two revenue rulings, Rev. Rul. 57-128 and Rev. Rul. 89-49  and the principles outlined in those rulings as to what constitutes a political subdivision. Notice 2015-07 then turns to that list of elements“. . . whether the members of the entity’s governing board or body are publicly nominated and elected . . .” The chief appraiser does have authority to hire employees, within the limits of the budget imposed by the board of directors. For this reason, he is an "officer" within the Nepotism Act, art. 5996a, V.T.C.S.; Attorney General Opinion JM-72 (1983). The statutory definition of "officer" given in the Nepotism Act is not necessarily identical with the definition of officer applicable to article XVI, section 40 of the Texas Constitution. See Attorney General Opinion JM-72 (1983); Letters Advisory Nos. 156, 152 (1978). The chief appraiser needs to hire employees to carry out his primary function of appraising property, which is exercised subject to the control and supervision of others. Although he has some independence in hiring decisions, this power is incidental to and subordinate to his primary role as agent and employee of the appraisal district board of directors. The chief appraiser does not, in our opinion, hold an office within article XVI, section 40 of the Texas Constitution

Texas appraisal districts claim state district courts do not have jurisdiction to review actions of the appraisal district and appraisal review board because the Legislature established the ARB as sole administrator, judge and jury for all matters concerning ad valorem taxes. They claim this is true even if they are knowingly and habitually violating Texas property tax law, thus making their appraisal review board the supreme law. This is unconstitutional. Neither Constitution makes an exception for appraisal districts, ARB or property taxes.  

The Texas Constitution, Bill Of Rights Sec. 27.  RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY; PETITION FOR REDRESS OF GRIEVANCES.  The citizens shall have the right, in a peaceable manner, to assemble together for their common good; and apply to those invested with the powers of government for redress of grievances or other purposes, by petition, address or remonstrance.  

The Texas comptroller is responsible for establishing minimum standards for the administration and operation of an appraisal district, establishing the Property Taxpayer Assistance Division. Yet, the comptroller and this division have very limited options for enforcing these minimum standards. They maintain they have no authority over the district. Getting the PTAD to investigate appraisal district abuses is virtually impossible. Why?

Because Texas has no state tax they have to “limit” their involvement. PTAD has no authority over an appraisal district’s operations and is limited to guidance and training. Appraisal districts claim they are operating under PTAD standards. However, the State under the PTAD is  mandating and forcing unequal state property taxation requirements for public education funding against constitutional provisions. The annual comptroller’s ratio study plays a major factor causing aggressive increases in property tax assessed values. Texas still maintains there’s no state tax, but the Comptroller can, and does, force local appraisal districts to institute substantial increases in assessed value for school district funding purposes. State controlled property tax is a violation of the Texas Constitution.

Are property taxes voluntary? Yes. No. Maybe?? 

Donation: A donation is a gift- usually one of a charitable nature. A donation is a voluntary transfer of property (often money) from the transferor (donor) to the transferee (donee) with no exchange of value (consideration) on the part of the recipient (donee). (The recipient gives nothing in exchange for the donated property.)

When a donor knowingly, intentionally, and unconditionally conveys property (or a symbol of the intended property) to a donee, the donation goes into effect and becomes irrevocable upon the donee's acceptance thereof.

Tax: A tax is a compulsory monetary contribution imposed by governments to pay for governmental activities. Common taxes include income, sales and value-based taxes. 

A property tax is assessed according to the value of property a taxpayer owns. Because property taxes depend on value, they are called ad valorem, meaning “according to value.” 

The Texas Constitution says, at Article 8, Section 1-a:…Provided that in those counties or political subdivisions or areas of the State from which tax donations have heretofore been granted, the State Automatic Tax Board shall continue to levy the full amount of the State ad valorem tax for the duration of such donation, or until all legal obligations heretofore authorized by the law granting such donation or donations shall have been fully discharged, whichever shall first occur; provided that if such donation to any such county or political subdivision is for less than the full amount of State ad valorem taxes so levied, the portion of such taxes remaining over and above such donation shall be retained by said county or subdivision. 

Ad valorem property taxes are a forced tax upon the citizens with no choice or voice; TAXATION WITHOUT REPRESENTATION. Yet, appraisal district and taxing entities defender’s use the bad interpretation of case law thus establishing that “[o]ne who pays an illegal tax voluntarily has no valid claim for its repayment.“ The object of this rule is to discourage litigation and to secure the taxing authority in the orderly conduct of its affairs.“ A mistake of law does not excuse a taxpayer from the consequences of voluntary payment of tax without protest, because everyone is presumed to know the law. 

Section 31,115 of the Tax Code provides that: Payment of an ad valorem tax is involuntary if the taxpayer indicates that the tax is paid under protest(1) on the instrument by which the tax is paid; or (2) in a document accompanying the payment. 

 Another confusing, unethical and contradictory tax law. If we pay the property tax bill as it comes to us without “protesting” then we are considered to be in agreement to the amount and use of all taxes and are “voluntarily” paying the taxes due. However, if we don’t pay the property tax bill, we are charged with penalties and interest that continues to accumulate and our property is taken away and sold against our will for the nonpayment of those taxes. So, we taxpayers are supposed to know and understand the 600+ pages of the confusing and conflicting Tax Code when our Legislators who created it and elected officials and even our own appraisal district supposedly trained in it do not fully understand it. AND unless we all pay by check with PAID UNDER DURESS OR PROTEST across it or attach a separate sheet of paper with the same statement to the payment, we are in total agreement with and are voluntarily paying this ILLEGAL TAX we are FORCED with?? How much more misleading, unethical and immoral can this be?

The amount of a taxing unit's budget determines the tax rate, therefore our locally elected officials and each taxing entity are responsible for our obscene property taxes, however, the State has more to do with it than they claim. The State claims they don’t set tax rates and property taxes are strictly a local government function. The State provides just enough guidance and statutory guidelines for property taxation to keep appraisal districts assessment high for school district funding purposes. This is a State controlled tax and is unconstitutional. They also mandate functions without providing funding thus creating in-funded mandates. Local governments such as our County, while a separate entity who can own property and be sued, are still under complete control of the State and the State has the authority to eliminate ad valorem property taxes- no matter what the Governor would have us believe. The appraisal district claims they don’t set the tax rates or have control over our taxes, yet they are the engine behind the entire scheme and work at the pleasure of the taxing entities who pay for their services, not the taxpayers. The taxing entities blame the State and the high appraisals for higher tax bills, while they claim they’re keeping the tax rate the same. 

Some Texans might talk a little bit slow, but I guarantee you we are not ignorant to this vicious cycle between the State, school districts, the taxing entities, appraisal district board and ARB. How does that work when they keep the tax rate the same you ask? Same tax rate + Raised taxable values = Increased property tax revenue.

Texas has avoided their responsibility and has purposely delegated their duty to provide and pay for public education to local governments who levy these taxes to pay for the public school districts. Which leads me to my question- Do public school districts have the Constitutional authority to levy taxes? Is there express written authority within our US Constitution or Texas Constitution? No!

Manges V. Freer Indep. Sch. Dist., 653 S.W.2d 553, 558 (Tex. App.-SanAntonio 1983), rev 'd on other grounds, 677 S.W.2d488 (Tex. 1984) (school district has no inherent authority to levy ad valorem taxes; the authority must arise from a grant of power found in the constitution).

In construing constitutional provisions, we try to give them the effect their makers and adopiers intended. See Stringer v. Cendan. Norizage/Cup i*3 S W/ 3a1353, 355 (Tex. 2000); City of El Paso Y. El Paso Cmiy. COll. Disr, 720 S. 28 290, 593 Tex. 1980),. And we strive to avoid a construction that renders any provision meaningless of inoperative. See Stringer, 23 S.W:3d at355; Hanson v. Jordan, 198 S. W 2d 262, 263 (Tex. 1946),. 

The Supreme Court of Texas has not definitively settled whether the Texas Constitution impliedly prohibits the Legislature from allowing a political subdivision to impose ad valorem taxes absent express constitutional authorization. However, the Legislature has shown a long-standing pattern of amending the constitution to authorize new kinds of political subdivisions to impose ad valorem taxes, while certain intermediate appellate courts have assumed that ad valorem taxes must be constitutionally authorized. This office has also stated that the Legislature may not increase a county's ad valorem taxing power absent a constitutional amendment. See Tex. Atty Gen. Op. No. O-5842 (1944) at 3. The authority on this question tends to indicate that the Legislature may not impose an ad valorem tax absent express constitutional authority. 

The cost of “public services” are considerably more than what’s supposedly supported by the property tax. Our tax bill sits at zero until these taxing entities budgets are made. There are Constitutional restrictions on how public money is to be spent. Ad valorem taxes can only be levied and used for purposes for which they’re expressly granted. Public funds are any funds from taxes or fees imposed by a governmental entity to raise revenues and any funds under the control of a governmental entity. This includes not only local tax revenue and fees, but state and federal funds, as well as cash and other assets obtained through gifts and fundraising. Salaries and fringe benefits of the general government and public school district administrators are out of control. Salaries and the excessive fringe benefits paid to both full-time and part-time employees are the biggest expense of the cost of local government operations. When compared to compensation and benefits packages the total far outweighs that of employees in the private sector. Per state law, salaries do not include anything above a salary paid for services rendered. Examples of fringe benefits are medical, vision and dental insurance, employer paid premiums, longevity pay, pensions, holiday pay, vacation pay, sick leave, cell phone allowances, travel allowances, etc. To get around this provision, most travel and other allowances are paid up front-paid even if not having traveled. Many of those services paid for with public monies are legitimate, of course, especially if they aim, preemptively, at securing genuine rights and public safety. But many more are aimed at providing some citizens with benefits at the expense of other citizens; private gain. They take rights from some to benefit others. This is unconstitutional. Once the public has a vote and say as to how their tax dollars are used to pay for the fringe benefits and public services they’re providing for public employees and services they now receive “free,” they will demand fewer of them. It should hardly surprise anyone that when people have to pay for something, they demand less of it. These “free” benefits are in fact paid for; Isolated owners are paying for them, not the public.

Tex. Const. art. III, § 44: “The Legislature shall provide by law for the compensation of all officers, servants, agents and public contractors, not provided for in this Constitution, but shall not grant extra compensation to any officer, agent, servant, or public contractors, after such public service shall have been performed or contract entered into, for the performance of the same; nor grant, by appropriation or otherwise, any amount of money out of the Treasury of the State, to any individual, on a claim, real or pretended, when the same shall not have been provided for by pre-existing law; nor employ any one in the name of the State, unless authorized by pre-existing law.”

Tex. Const. art. III, § 50: “The Legislature shall have no power to give or to lend, or to authorize the giving or lending, of the credit of the State in aid of, or to any person, association or corporation, whether municipal or other, or to pledge the credit of the State in any manner whatsoever, for the payment of the liabilities, present or prospective, of any individual, association of individuals, municipal or other corporation whatsoever.”

Tex. Const. art. III, § 51: “The Legislature shall have no power to make any grant or authorize the making of any grant of public moneys to any individual, association of individuals, municipal or other corporations whatsoever; provided that the provisions of this Section shall not be construed so as to prevent the grant of aid in cases of public calamity.” 

Tex. Const. art. III, § 52(a): “Except as otherwise provided by this section, the Legislature shall have no power to authorize any county, city, town or other political corporation or subdivision of the State to lend its credit or to grant public money or thing of value in aid of, or to any individual, association or corporation whatsoever, or to become a stockholder in such corporation, association or company.”

Tex. Const. art. III, § 53: “The Legislature shall have no power to grant, or to authorize any county or municipal authority to grant, any extra compensation, fee or allowance to a public officer, agent, servant or contractor, after service has been rendered, or a contract has been entered into, and performed in whole or in part; nor pay, nor authorize the payment of, any claim created against any county or municipality of the State, under any agreement or contract, made without authority of law.”

Tex. Const. art. XI, § 3: “No county, city, or other municipal corporation shall hereafter become a subscriber to the capital of any private corporation or association, or make any appropriation or donation to the same, or in anywise loan its credit; but this shall not be construed to in any way affect any obligation heretofore undertaken pursuant to law or to prevent a county, city, or other municipal corporation from investing its funds as authorized by law.”

III. Compensation Increases

Article III, section 53, of the Texas Constitution prohibits the grant of extra compensation to a public employee or contractor after service has been rendered or performance has begun on a contract. While the language of Section 53 applies to “municipalities” and “counties,” the Texas Commission on Appeals concluded that these terms include public school districts. Harlingen Indep. Sch. Dist. v. C.H. Page & Bro., 48 S.W.2d 983 (Tex. Comm’n App. 1932). In addition, Article III, section 44 of the Texas Constitution prohibits the legislature from granting extra compensation to a public employee after a contract has been entered into under pre-existing law.

The purpose of these constitutional restrictions is to prevent political subdivisions from giving away public money for services previously rendered, for which no valid legal authorization exists or for which the public would receive no return. Tex. Att’y Gen. Op. Nos. GA-0368 (2005), GA-0204 (2004). In other words, once a person has agreed to provide services to a district at a certain price, the district must have a legal reason for paying more than the person bargained for.

 

Taxpayers are forced to have unequal benefits for the equal property tax sacrifice of all property owners in the forced assessment and collection of ad valorem taxes. 

We have the Constitutional promise of equal treatment and there’s no exception. The majority of Jasper County residents reside outside of the city limits and in the far reaching areas of the County and do not reap the same benefits or even have access to the same services, if any, that are paid for via ad valorem property taxes. Most of these “free” services courtesy of the tax were not even voted on. 

My money, property and my home are my private property. Every nail, board and building component was taxed at the time of purchase. Every storage shed and dog pen was taxed at the time of purchase. Every fence post and string of wire was taxed at the time of purchase. Virtually everything that gives value to my property according to the appraisal district employees assessing my property has already been taxed. My home is paid for, yet I still pay the monthly equivalent of my mortgage in property taxes. The property tax scheme is the only taxing scheme that is based upon discrimination-based on an opinion and the supposed wealth or lack there of of the taxpayer. Our tax rates against our assessments are applied after a budget is made. Appraisal district employees can basically violate every privacy law enacted, trespassing upon our property at any given moment, peer in windows, take pictures and measurements of my personal property. They can fly drones over my private property taking photos, access my personal bank information and income tax records without my knowledge and use this information against me. The only other people who do these things are criminals and those with the intent to commit fraud. 

He owes no duty to the state or to his neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to an investigation, so far as it may tend to criminate him. He owes no such duty to the state, since he receives nothing therefrom, beyond the protection of his life and property. His rights are such as existed by the law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. United States Supreme Court reminds us in Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (1906):

"The legal right of an individual to decrease or ALTOGETHER AVOID his/her taxes by means which the law permits cannot be doubted" --Gregory v. Helvering, 293 U.S. 465

"The fact is, property is a tree; income is the fruit; labour is a tree; income the fruit; capital, the tree; income the 'fruit.' The fruit, if not consumed (severed) as fast as it ripens, will germinate from the seed... and will produce other trees and grow into more property; but so long as it is fruit merely, and plucked (severed) to eat... it is no tree, and will produce itself no fruit." Waring v. City of Savennah. 60 Ga. 93, 100 (1878.

The point being made is that the tree (private property, land, wages, salaries, compensation) is NOT taxable, while the "fruit" (or "income" FROM said property or wages) of the tree CAN possibly be taxed, (but only according to constitutional provisions). Tax upon income derived from, say, rental property, CAN be taxed, but ONLY according to the Constitution, because the tax does NOT diminish "tree," the principal, or lessen the value of the person or property. Property taxation diminishes the "tree" itself, (the wealth of the person) thereby creating a possible situation where the tree could disappear because of the tax.

The Chief is incompetent to lead the appraisal district. On top of the already mentioned discrimination and abuses, there’s shoddy, incomplete work and records, inconsistencies throughout the County appraisal methods and records and mass confusion concerning appraisal district laws, rules and procedures by employees-who work under the guidance of the Chief; operating under made up rules resembling some part of the statutory tax laws and are ever changing and different for each person. 

 The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void and ineffective for any purpose, since its unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment... In legal contemplation, it is as inoperative as if it had never been passed... Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principles follow that it imposes no duties, confers no right, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection and justifies no acts performed under it... A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one. An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing law. Indeed insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, (the Constitution JTM) it is superseded thereby. No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it." Bonnett v. Vallier, 116 N.W. 885, 136 Wis. 193 (1908); NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425 (1886). See also Bonnett v Vallier, 136 Wis 193, 200; 116 NW 885, 887 (1908); State ex rel Ballard v Goodland, 159 Wis 393, 395; 150 NW 488, 489 (1915); State ex rel Kleist v Donald, 164 Wis 545, 552-553; 160 NW 1067, 1070 (1917); State ex rel Martin v Zimmerman, 233 Wis 16, 21; 288 NW 454, 457 (1939); State ex rel Commissioners of Public Lands v Anderson, 56 Wis 2d 666, 672; 203 NW2d 84, 87 (1973); and Butzlaffer v Van Der Geest & Sons, Inc, Wis, 115 Wis 2d 539; 340 NW2d 742, 744-745 (1983).

The Legislature has created a contradictory tax law that goes against our constitutional rights and protections. This law is repugnant to the Constitutional powers and limits of taxation. Local governments choose to interpret their own versions. When taxpayers voice our concerns and frustrations of the abuses of power, we are reprimanded, retaliated against and silenced. Our Legislature and elected officials refuse to take the appropriate action to rectify the situation; elimination of the appraisal districts and the property tax and elimination of tax payer funded lobbying.

When an act of the legislature is repugnant or contrary to the constitution, it is, ipso facto, void." 2 Pet. R. 522; 12 Wheat. 270; 3 Dall. 286; 4 Dall. 18.

"...all laws which are repugnant to the Constitution are null and void' (Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 174, 170).

Thus, the particular phraseology of the constitution of the United States confirms and strengthens the principle, supposed to be essential to all written constitutions, that a law repugnant to the Constitution is void;" and the courts, as well as other departments, are bound by that instrument." Marbury v Madison, 5 US 1803 (2 Cranch) 137, 170?180, and NORTON v. SHELBY COUNTY, 118 U.S. 425.

"[p]owers not granted (to any government) are prohibited." United States v. Butler, 297 U.S 1, 68 (1936).

"Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." - Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

Thus, in the matter of taxation, the Constitution recognizes the two great classes of direct and indirect taxes, and lays down two rules by which their imposition must be governed, namely: the rule of apportionment as to direct taxes and the rule of uniformity as to duties, imposts and excises." ...determining that, the classification of Direct adopted for the purpose of rendering it impossible for the government to burden, by taxation, accumulation of property, real or personal, except subject to the regulation of apportionment..." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan & Trust Co. 158, U.S. 601, at 637 (1895).

"The name of the tax is unimportant that it is the substance and not the form which controls;' that the limitations of the constitution cannot be 'frittered away' by calling a tax indirect when it is in fact direct." Pollock v. Farmers' Loan and Trust Co., 157 U.S. 429, 580?1, 583 (1895.

"That decision affirms the great principle that what cannot be done directly (direct taxation) because of constitutional restriction cannot be accomplished indirectly by legislation which accomplishes the same result." Fairbanks v. U.S. 181 U.S. 283, 294 (1901).

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

"There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

 

We have just endured a two years long national pandemic and many of us are still feeling the economic results of mandatory closures resulting in astronomical unemployment rates across our County. We are facing massive inflation and many of us can barely afford fuel to get back and forth to work, not to mention groceries. Most of us, like myself, didn’t get to take advantage of the stimulus payments or other Federal or State benefits for food, rent or other housing payments. While we are having to heavily cut our personal budgets and tighten our belts, our County officials elected to give themselves yet another raise. We are already being taxed out of our homes at alarming rates, and this will only add to the heavy burden. It’s stunts like this that prove our elected officials are only thinking of themselves and do not have the Citizens best interests in mind. 

Jasper County has no transparency regarding the spending of our tax dollars. Websites and public information are limited, especially when compared to other County websites. Taxpayers do not get a vote or even have an opinion section on how our tax dollars are spent. Most of our local school districts have unacceptable performance audits. We are clueless as to how Covid funding was used, it surely wasn’t used for property tax relief. We should appraise the County and school districts for their performances based on the spending of our tax dollars. It is clear that no amount of revenue will ever be enough for Jasper County. 

State Representative James White introduced a bill to eliminate property taxes this past session but Speaker Phelan ignored it. Governor Abbott ignored it. How many years has Abbott promised property tax reform and relief? How much have we seen? How many times has Abbott himself complained about the property tax being unconstitutional and that we do not own our homes, we rent from the government? No more relief. No more reform. We demand elimination! Our elected leader have continued to fail us & it’s time the Citizens fight back. It is my opinion, which was based upon a multitude of facts, evidence and protections within both our state and federal Constitution, state laws and legal case facts, the entire property tax scheme of assessment and the forced collection of these taxes has been based on fraud resulting in an unconstitutional taking.