July 8, 2021: To understand the full denial of Due Process, much less following the law with which Shavano Park resident Judge Oscar Kazen has abused former fellow-resident of Shavano Park Charlie Thrash, read attorney Phil Ross’ appeal of over $300,000 of legal sanctions against himself and clients Laura Martinez-Thrash (Charlie’s common-law wife), Brittney Martinez-Thrash (Charlie’s would-be adopted daughter, and Laura’s biological daughter), and Billy Duncan (referred to in court documents as Charlie’s ‘next friend’.)
Appellants are: Charles I. Thrash, by and through Billy Duncan, as next friend; Laura A Martinez; Brittany A Martinez; and Philip M Ross, all of whom are represented by Philip M Ross, State Bar No. 17304200
Appellees are: Tonya M Barina, Guardian of the Estate of Charles Inness Thrash, an Adult, and Mary C Werner, Guardian of the Person of Charles Innes Thrash, an Adult, as represented by:
- Karen Andersen, State Bar No 24088735
- Les Katona, Jr, State Bar No 11106680
- Kristopher L. Bowen, Jr.
- Andrea Tidwell Bowen
- Barrett Shipp, State Bar No 24060601
From Charlie’s Appeal to the Texas State Supreme Court, Filed July 8, 2021 at 4:32pm, PETITION FOR REVIEW, four Issues are presented to the justices for their consideration:
- Issue No. 1 The Court of Appeals Opinion and Order on March 31, 2021 denying jurisdiction was in error because Charlie had, or should have had, a right to be represented by a next friend to appeal the trial court’s May 29, 2019 Second Amended Order Granting Motion for Sanctions when his estate was required to pay costs and attorney’s fees in excess of $300,000.00.
- Issue No. 2 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s May 29, 2019 Second Amended Order Granting Motion for Sanctions in error because the guardians and their attorneys, not the Appellants, were responsible for $300,000 of unnecessary and unreasonable attorneys’ fees incurred at Charlie’s expense to contest his right to counsel, marriage, adoption, recusal and sanctions issues, which was a breach of the guardians and/or their attorneys’ fiduciary duty to Charlie and his estate.
- Issue No. 3 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s May 29, 2019 Second Amended Order Granting Motion for Sanctions finding that Appellants should be sanctioned for filing motions to recuse Judge Kazen in error because the administrative judge, not Judge Kazen, had jurisdiction to order sanctions in the recusal proceeding.
- Issue No. 4 The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court’s May 29, 2019 Second Amended Order Granting Motion for Sanctions finding that Appellants’ attorney should be required to pay the guardians’ attorney’s fees in error because the undersigned counsel’s zealous advocacy was not vexatious, the trial court’s findings were not supported by legally or factually sufficient evidence, and Appellants’ attorney’s actions were protected by attorney immunity.