souldeux

I've read the first two pages of this document you linked and this is my favorite sentence so far:

On April 23, 2013, Mr. Ross filed a motion to withdraw as counsel citing an inability to effectively communicate with Mr. West. Apx. F. The Court subsequently entered an agreed order allowing Mr. Ross to withdraw.

After being found in contempt for not paying your support, being sent to jail for 180 days, being released after only 19 days, falling behind on your payments again after two more months, having ANOTHER judgement against you, then AGAIN failing to make your payments, your lawyer just finally quit on you. And then when you showed up in court again:

The Court heard Ms. Kincade’s Second Counterpetition for Enforcement on May 6. Apx. G. The Court states in its Judgment that Mr. West “appeared in person, pro se, and announced ready for trial.”

You just showed up by yourself and were found liable for ANOTHER $7000. This was on April 23rd, 2013.

AND THEN

The Court called this case again on June 11, 2013. Mr. West appeared in person, waived his right to counsel, and announced ready for trial. Apx. H. During testimony, Mr. West under oath advised the Court that he continues to be on V.A. Disability and did not dispute that he receives in excess of $2,000 per month in tax-free benefits and lives with his girlfriend, requiring few expenditures on his part.

AND THEN:

This Order also revoked Mr. West’s conditional release from jail on November 20, 2012 finding that he “has breached and contemptuously violated the conditions of his release.” Id. at 3. Mr. West did not appeal this revocation.

In other words, you continued to fail to pay your child support and got sent back to jail again.

Then you started getting your Habeas Corpus filings denied. Not because anyone was violating Habeas Corpus, but because you shouldn't have been filing the damn things in the first place, as is explained in the same document:

Habeas corpus cannot be used as a method of appeal. Ex parte Olson, 111 Tex. 601, 610, 243 S.W. 773, 777 (1922). A writ of habeas corpus may not issue simply because the contempt or commitment order is erroneous or voidable. Ex parte Duncan, 127 Tex. 507, 516, 95 S.W.2d 675, 680 (1936). It may issue only when the order is void.

You probably could have had a lawyer explain this to you, if you hadn't pissed yours off so badly that he quit.

Even if Habeas Corpus was an appropriate filing, you apparently never provided any sort of documentation backing up your claims:

The trial court found West to be in contempt and ordered him confined after a hearing on a motion for enforcement filed by Bethlehem Rose Kincade, the real party in interest. In this original proceeding, West bears the burden of showing he is entitled to habeas relief, which includes providing an adequate record that establishes the invalidity of the contempt order. See TEX. R. APP. P. 52.7(a) (requiring certified copies of all relevant documents filed in any underlying proceeding and a properly authenticated transcript of any relevant testimony from any underlying proceeding); In re Turner, 177 S.W.3d 284, 288 (Tex. App.–Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, orig. proceeding [habeas denied]). However, West has not furnished a copy of the November 1, 20121 order incorporated by reference into the challenged order, and seems toquestion whether the prior order was ever signed. Nor has he furnished a copy of the transcript for the enforcement hearing.

But this is where it gets funny:

Both the United States and Texas Constitutions prohibit cruel and unusual punishment. Prison officials can make arbitrary decisions regarding providing privileges to prisoners amounting to more than reasonably adequate food, clothing, sanitation, medical care, and personal safety. Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1986) (emphasis mine). Except for denials of a fundamental right, distinguishing between prisoners can be based upon considerations such as administrative convenience, expense, or security. Id. The Green court ruled that it is not deliberate indifference constituting a claim to refuse to provide a paraplegic state prisoner with a special mattress or a specialized physician. Id. Mr. West claims that it is cruel and unusual punishment to be denied access to a prescription mattress and specialized chiropractic care three times each week. Mr. West does not 13 have a fundamental right to be provided those items; therefore, jail officials have the ability to refuse to provide those items. It is not cruel and unusual punishment to be denied access to a prescription mattress and specialized chiropractic care. Not only is it not cruel and unusual punishment to deny access to the requested items, but Mr. West completely failed to provide proof of his claims. Mr. West did not provide a copy of his medical records, prescription, or need for the mattress or specialized care. Mr. West has again failed to provide proof of his claims by a preponderance of the evidence. This point of error should be overruled.

No documentation, no prescription, no medical note, nothing. Just "I want a nice mattress and chiropractic care during my time in jail, where I am because I don't support my children."

I know you. I don't know you personally, but I work with people like you every day and I know the line of thought that has gotten you to this stupid, stupid place. Good luck. You need it. And for god's sake, if you can't get a lawyer to touch your case NOW, they're damn sure not going to do it after you spray this nonsense across the internet.

Oh god, I've become the "Relevant XKCD Guy" sort of.

"Could not pay" sounds like it should have been phrased as "chose not to pay, in direct violation of a court order." Nice find.

Yeah, but:

During the time when he was behind on CS payments, he was spending money on other purposes for his kids--notably, trying to protect them from his ex's current husband, who is a drug dealer.

You don't get to ignore a court order just because you think you have a better handle on the situation. And it sounds like the kids needed to be protected from OP more than anything else, given the multiple protective orders issued against him.

The judge in charge of the divorce case has been routinely dismissive of OP's claims about the drug dealer situation

I would say that OP feels that everyone in the world has been dismissive of his persecution.

OP has experienced lot of obstruction with other steps of the legal process, including getting a lawyer to help with the appeal and getting documents relating to his case.

OP's lawyer up and quit on him because OP was impossible to communicate with. He then went on to try and represent himself, failed, and failed to pay legal fees for the other attorneys who did their jobs.

The legal fees that OP owes his ex's lawyer are being inflated because the lawyer is friends with the judge.

No:

In his second issue, Mr. West claims that the assessment of $5,000.00 in attorney’s fees, expenses, and costs are excessive and asserts that it was “likely assessed to punish” him. Petition at 1. Applicant makes this claim solely on the basis of the notion that prior attorney’s fees and costs (when he was represented by counsel) were only $1,033.00. Id. At risk of being repetitive, an applicant is required to prove his case by a preponderance of the evidence. Ex parte Maldonado, 688 S.W.2d 114, 116 (Tex. Crim. App. 1985); accord Ex parte Richardson, 70 S.W.3d 865, 870 (Tex. Crim. App. 2002). Texas Family Code section 106.002 governs attorney's fees in suits affecting the parent-child relationship. See Tex. Fam. Code Ann.§ 106.002;Lenz v. Lenz,79 S.W.3d 10, 21 (Tex.2002). It provides that in a suit under Title 5 of the Texas Family Code, “the court may render judgment for reasonable attorney's fees and expenses and order the judgment and post judgment interest to be paid directly to an attorney.” Tex. Fam. Code Ann. § 106.002(a). The trial court has discretion in awarding fees under this statute. Lenz, 79 S.W.3d at 21; Bruni v. 8 Bruni, 924 S.W.2d 366, 368 (Tex.1996). Therefore, the trial court's award of attorney's fees should be reviewed on an abuse of discretion standard. See Bruni, 924 S.W.2d at 368. We will uphold the trial court's award unless we find that the court acted “without reference to any guiding rules or principles.”Worford v. Stamper,801 S.W.2d 108, 109 (Tex.1990)(per curiam). Here, applicant has provided nothing but his bald assertions that the judgment is excessive and likely to punish. In fact, what Mr. West fails to discuss is the excess of motions, responses, and petitions Mr. Guy was required to draft and file and the time necessary to complete those tasks once Mr. Ross withdrew (with Mr. West’s agreement) in order to effectively represent his client. The costs, fees, and expenses awarded to Mr. Guy are clearly within the trial court’s discretion, especially considering the likely hours of discussions with his client and the hours of drafting documents in repeated attempts to force Mr. West to provide the court-ordered support for his children. As Mr. West has failed to provide evidence of how the trial court’s award of reasonable attorney’s fees, costs, and expenses is excessive, this point of error should be overruled.

Then:

While OP has been penalized for not having all his legal documents totally in order, the documents from the court are themselves full of procedural problems (e.g. signed incorrectly)

Where? I'm going through the docs he linked, they look fine. There's definitely some lunatic bullshit in here, but it's all from him.

6: OP did bring the total payment due to one of the court hearings, but it was not accepted then.

It's stated multiple times in the order that payments made any way other than through the one approved channel will not be credited.

OP was never informed that his release was conditional and procedural inadequacies meant there's no record that he wasn't informed.

OP was informed that he was being sent to jail on contempt charges for failing to pay child support. The only way to not be guilty of that any more was to pay his child support. Basic literacy on OP's part suffices here.

Haha! I missed the part where he transitioned from deadbeat to full-on abusive, nice find.