Tiny Home Halloween: How the Goins Family Successfully Fought Off ...

The scariest terrorist is one's own lawless government.

Today is the 1 yr anniversary of my family being terrorized in Ft. Worth, Texas, for living in a Tiny Home nearby where JFK was assassinated 55 years ago.

For Halloween last year we came back from a 2 month trip to Europe to find ourselves homeless.

We came home to find injunction from a Tarrant County judge that we were somehow not allowed to live in our Tiny Home where we had previously lived for 3 years.

The Village of Sansom Park within Fort Worth, Texas had sued us while out of country based on an affidavit of a crooked cop who claimed we were living in our Tiny Home and somehow violating city ordinance while we were provably in Europe: Switzerland and more!

All's well that ends well as we successfully defended ourselves, made them pay us for the land in a settlement to drop my counter-charges against them, and kept our Tiny Home though we had it moved.

We moved to Houston, moved to Florida, and soon are moving to Georgia to settle down on a mountainside. It's been an exciting 1 yr anniversary and this year's Halloween was much less scary except in a fun way.

If anyone is having your tiny home-owner rights violated you will quickly find that there are no lawyers who will help you fight the lawless system, and if you are like my family forced to defend yourself pro se (on your own) then I hope you will find this response my wife and I wrote successfully shielded my family to be useful especially if you are experiencing abuse of police powers, violation of you tiny home rights, encountering crooked judges or lying criminals operating under the immunity and protection of a noble office under color of law to shield their misdeeds.

Disclaimers: I am not an attorney, and this is not legal advice. Only a licensed attorney/lawyer can give you legal advice as they no doubt do not want you to learn from the experiences of others as they want to keep the monopoly that you must pay them to be able to defend your family, so use this document as information only and at your own risk. If a lawyer is reading this interested in expanding practice to tiny-home-owner rights legal defense then I hope you find this document interesting and useful as well. To state sponsored government terrorists wishing to harm tiny-home-owners, sincerely from the Goins Family, Go to Hell. Happy Halloween.

Cause # 1 096-287851-16
City of Sansom Park vs. Aron B. Goins

Defendant’s Original Response, Affidavits, Motions, Notices, Objections

Pre-Appearance Objections and Motions by Special Appearance:

Comes now Defendant ARON BENJAMIN GOINS, the GOINS FAMILY estate represented in propria persona by Goins Family joint head of household Goins, Aron: Benjamin, a man, and co-head of household Blakemore-Goins, Sharalyn: Grace, a woman also known as Shari Goins, collectively a family referred to as the GOINS FAMILY and would state as follows:

The GOINS FAMILY admits and does not challenge the jurisdiction of the United Nations, United States of America, State of Texas, or Tarrant County with regards to fundamental and inherent rights as espoused in constitutions and bill of rights as they apply to the inherent rights of the currently two family members of the GOINS FAMILY and as they apply to the defendant in the instant matter. ARON BENJAMIN GOINS which is by lawful marriage one and the same person with the SHARALYN BLAKEMORE-GOINS estate concerning the matter of the GOINS FAMILY code compliance with regard to the GOINS FAMILY TINY HOME.

AFFIDAVIT OF NO FAIR TRIAL IN TARRANT COUNTY:
Comes now the GOINS FAMILY, Ben and Shari Goins.
We agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.
The Goins Family affirms that we have reason to believe that judicial corruption especially the “Good Ole Boy System” is a major problem plaguing the court systems in and about Tarrant County at all levels of Government adversely affecting rights en masse. The Goins Family has reason to believe based on our personal first hand knowledge experience with corrupt and injurious local judges, the HUDMAN FAMILY, in particular (Judge Hudman Jr. and Judge Hudman Sr. in or about City of Sansom Park municipality) that judicial forgery is common in and about Tarrant County, as we have reason to believe that Judge Jr signed for Judge Sr. as previously alleged in now closed case Goins vs. Sansom Park 4:14-365-0 from Federal Court. This is relevant because the case also concerned the code compliance of the Tool Shed/Tiny Home, which is relevant in the instant matter. This known corruption in and about Tarrant County gives us reason to question the current court. The signature on this court’s TRO, although in a different court yet also in Tarrant County, made at midnight without service is inconsistent with honorable judicial behavior. We believe it was likely signed by someone else besides the judge, or alternatively was signed in error at the bad faith information supplied by petitioner, or alternatively if signature was signed genuinely by the judge with full knowledge that no service had yet been supplied that it is admissible evidence to the GOINS FAMILY of judicial misconduct and bad faith of this court prejudicing the GOINS FAMILY from receiving a fair and impartial trial in this county.

Further affiants sayeth not: /s/ARON BENJAMIN GOINS, Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ SHARALYN BLAKEMORE-GOINS, Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 24th
So we swear under oath and penalty of perjury and death by higher power if our words be not true.

MOTION FOR CHANGE IN VENUE:

A Motion to Transfer Venue because an impartial trial cannot be held in the county where the action is pending is governed by TRCP Rule 87 and 257.

The GOINS FAMILY enters a standing motion for change of venue based on the above affidavit of evidence that we cannot receive a fair and impartial trial in this county. The corruption in Tarrant County is so bad that it is nicknamed “Tyrant County” by the locals. We understand that corruption in government is a problem everywhere, and although we are glad to be able to defend ourselves in our native tongue, and are generally glad to be in the United States where we believe general corruption to be somewhat less than is other parts of the world, we believe that corruption is generally higher in Tarrant County in particular and is highest in Tarrant County in the area of Jacksboro Highway and Sansom Park specifically. Sansom Park has a history as a haven for prostitution, casinos and gangsters, which is tied to the history of Fort Worth in general. We don’t think we received a fair trial in federal court down the street in Fort Worth in previous engagements with Sansom Park concerning the same issue in the instant matter (code violations) and we don’t think we will get a fair trial now either. We respectfully request that if this court is unable or unwilling to explain the dubious nature of the circumstances surrounding its un-served TRO, signed at midnight, or to acknowledge and take appropriate steps to respond to the self-evident, admitted and discoverable bad faith of petitioner, that the venue be moved immediately to Harris County, Texas where we believe that we can get a fair trial, and where it will be warmer during the winter as we defend our rights in a state of government mandated homelessness and exile from our land and property.

/s/ Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 27th

Proposed Order: Court (is/is not) willing to explain why it was not an error or correct error in regards to unserved TRO signing. Court (is/is not) willing to change venue. Court (believes/does not believe) that defendant can get a fair trail in Tarrant County. Venue (is/is not) ordered to be moved to ____________ (Harris County) signed judge __________ date ________

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT FOR CHANGE OF VENUE
Comes now the GOINS FAMILY, Ben and Shari Goins.
We agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.
Because of the strange circumstances surrounding this court’s motion for unserved TRO not made in the light of day, the GOINS FAMILY has reason to be unsure as to whether a fair and impartial trial can be held in this county of Tarrant. We affirm that we notified this court of this error via notice Oct 17th in the light of day, objecting to it as best we could while out of the country. We requested that it take action sua sponte as well as for sua sponte other relief as justice requires such as reasonable accommodation. We affirm that as of Oct 27th we have not been notified of any sua sponte order by this court. We affirm that the evidence currently before us of potential judicial misconduct be for whatever reason, forgery or error, if uncorrected before trial, is sufficient to defeat our presumption that this court is capable of making a fair and impartial trial for the GOINS FAMILY.

Further affiants sayeth not: /s/ARON BENJAMIN GOINS, Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ SHARALYN BLAKEMORE-GOINS, Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 27th
So we swear under oath and penalty of perjury and death by higher power if our words be not true.

JURISDICTIONAL ISSUES
The GOINS FAMILY denies the jurisdiction the local village council who refer to themselves by the misnomer of CITY OF SANSOM PARK. We assert that we own our own land with an undivided interest to the best of our knowledge. We assert that they are a village not a city, and that we are not in their village. Although we assumed we were in their village and made a good faith effort initially to ask them for a building permit and even paid them to install a water/sewer tap, which they never installed, it quickly became apparent that they had imperfect jurisdiction. They refused to grant tool shed permits on the grounds that they couldn’t find us on their map, even though we had provided them a bona-fide survey; they told us to go talk to the City of Fort Worth instead. Upon close examination of the survey, which has never been disputed, you can see that it clearly says that the property is located in FORT WORTH not SANSOM PARK. Refer to the survey submitted as evidence by Plaintiff. Additionally, the secretary of the state of Texas has no corporate filings for an entity under their current or former names. They held on to our water/sewer tap money for approximately 7 months in bad faith before returning our funds back to us via check issued by the city of Fort Worth. They subsequently issued a refund at the same time as arresting Aron Goins on defective warrants, likely on the forgery of their nepotic local Hudman Sr. and Jr judges (see generally pleadings, affidavits sworn under penalty of perjury entered by GOINS FAMILY in GOINS vs. Sansom Park et al in federal court 4:14-CV-365-O). It is quite clear in hindsight that they’re refusal to provide us with any services means that we were defacto kicked out of their city as political pariahs. Their local council refuses under any circumstance to grant us any permit whatsoever, no matter how reasonable. I couldn’t get them to remove a dangerous sign that had rusted in the yard after asking for 6 months and finally had to remove it myself. I couldn’t get them to give me a fence permit even for my fence which is only one rock high and is clearly compliant with all their codes including being less than six feet and correctly placed on a verified and un-contested survey line. Their malice knows no bounds and we have extensive proof to show should this court wish to hear it and we incorporate all of the GOINS filings, affidavits, exhibits, motions on the public record for Goins vs. Sansom Park et al as if stated verbatim into this document and case. Additionally, we request a special investigation conducted by TARRANT COUNTY be conducted into the true legal and corporate entity of the plaintiff.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF NO CITY OF SANSOM PARK JURISDICTION OR PUBLIC CORPORATION

Comes now the GOINS FAMILY, Ben and Shari Goins.
We agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

We have examined evidence including deed and survey which states that our property is actually in Fort Worth. We are aware of a preponderance of evidence to support that CITY OF SANSOM PARK is, was, is partially, or is entirely actually the CITY OF FORT WORTH or an annex of the CITY OF FORT WORTH. SANSOM PARK has imperfect jurisdiction. We also have first hand knowledge based on receipt of a water/sewer tap refund from them, which was marked as actually coming back from the CITY OF FORT WORTH that financial funds are comingled. We also have first hand knowledge that the park Marion Sansom Park for whom the “city” is assumed to be named after has a sign which clearly says “City of Fort Worth Parks and Rec Department” on it. We have reason to believe there is an intentional obfuscation concerning the identity of the CITY OF SANSOM PARK, which violates our rights to a transparent government and has and does cause us injury at the hands of the CITY OF SANSOM PARK and her agents. We are not aware of having any contract with the CITY OF SANSOM PARK and are not aware of receiving any service from them other than unwanted harassment and injury by their bad faith efforts to enforce codes on us while simultaneously ignoring codes of our neighbors, which affect our rights. We made a good faith effort to bring our concerns to Tarrant County at a recent tax appraisal and were told that they do not have the authority to make the decision on that matter, and were told that they ASSUME that the CITY OF SANSOM PARK is a valid taxing entity. We have reason to believe that there exists sufficient evidence to the contrary and that this court has the requisite jurisdiction and authority to make a determination on this matter without need for a jury. We contacted the Texas Secretary of State and were unable to locate any record for their being listed as a valid Texas public corporation under their current or past names. Thus, we believe that it is proper to challenge their corporate status. The GOINS FAMILY requests a special investigation, conducted by TARRANT COUNTY, in to the true identity of SANSOM PARK.

Certificate of Compliance with TXRCP #93 that Corporation is not incorporated as alleged be supported by affidavit.

/s/ARON BENJAMIN GOINS, Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ SHARALYN BLAKEMORE-GOINS, Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 24th

The GOINS FAMILY requests a special investigation, conducted by TARRANT COUNTY, in to the true identity of SANSOM PARK.

AFFIDAVIT CONTROVERTING BUILDING INSPECTOR AFFIDAVIT

Comes now the GOINS FAMILY, Ben and Shari Goins.
We agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

We have reason and evidence to believe and do believe that the petitioner’s building inspector did act in bad faith and did knowingly, willingly, and intentionally create a defective affidavit relied upon by petitioner to make a fraudulent pleading to the adversity of the rights of the GOINS FAMILY. He failed to inspect, and omitted the reporting of and taking action concerning the safety of garage columns on Lot 19 (5418 Landino) which encroach on the GOINS FAMILY property on Lot 18 (5410 Landino) and is intentionally assisting the SANSOM PARK entity in improper and bad faith enforcement of building codes on a building which is grandfathered in, instead of doing his job and reporting on the obvious un-safe conditions of the garage columns.

Also we affirm that on June 3rd, 2016 we were out of town in Galveston at Shari’s uncle’s retirement party and can prove it, so building inspector and petitioner’s claim that we were somehow residing there on that day are in bad faith as we were not even there that day. The building inspector’s affidavit as to it being used is a residence is made in bad faith or error or both. The building inspector’s affidavit of June 3rd is hereby officially controverted.

We have reason to believe and do believe that this was done on purpose to make it look like the building inspector made a good faith effort to contact us, which he did not. The building inspector also claims to have come by the property on July 27th and on Sept 23rd which we have reason to believe since petitioners exhibit C and D are time stamped. To the best of our knowledge we were in town the day of July 27th and to the best of our knowledge the building inspector could have, had he wished to make a good faith effort, been given free access upon to inspect all of the GOINS FAMILY land. To the best of our knowledge a bevy of city officials and various police officers have ARON GOINS correct personal cell phone number. We have reason to believe based on petitioner’s exhibit D and word of the building inspector that he once again came to our land on September 23rd, 2016 when were in Honfleur, France. The building inspector’s affidavit as to it being used is a residence is made in bad faith or error or both. The building inspector’s affidavit of September 23rd is hereby officially controverted.
We were out of town in Europe from Aug 31st – Oct 26th and are not responsible for the bad faith of the building inspector during that time.

We believe and have reason to believe that the building inspector was instructed to act in bad faith by Greg Hutson (a previous defendant to the GOINS FAMILY in federal court who is or was the color of law city administrator of Sansom Park).

The GOINS FAMILY does controvert and object to the affidavits of the building inspector and we reserve the right to cross-examine said officer as his omissions were made in bad faith to injure the name of the GOINS FAMILY, and we believe we can prove the same.

AFFIDAVIT OF ATTORNEY AND SERVICE OFFICER BAD FAITH

The GOINS FAMILY does controvert the affidavit of the service officer and we reserve the right to cross-examine said officer as some of his statements were made in bad faith to injure the name of the GOINS FAMILY, and we believe we can prove the same.

Comes now the GOINS FAMILY, Ben and Shari Goins.
We agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

The GOINS FAMILY has reason to believe and does believe that the opposing attorney did purposefully withhold information from service officer that they had been contacted, that they are or were out of town at the time of service, and thus the service officer was led to waste public time and expense attempting service on multiple days unnecessarily, and that opposing counsel did so intentionally as they wanted to increase their bill to the GOINS FAMILY in intentional bad faith should they win. We could not avoid service because we were not in the country. Additionally, the GOINS family has reason to believe that the officer did lie/misrepresent in his affidavit as the GOINS FAMILY is unaware having avoided service or of every having been served anything from that officer before to the best of our memory and knowledge as he claims and believe that we can prove that and intend to impeach his affidavit on cross examination. We have reason to believe that the officer did intentionally misrepresent to injure and damage the GOINS FAMILY dignity, which is why he did not put his affidavit under penalty of perjury as he knew it to be false.

MOTION CHALLENGING BOND AMOUNT

The Goins Family motions that the court reconsiders petitioner’s assertion that it need not enter a bond.
/s/ Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 24th

Proposed Order:
Petitioner is ordered by _____ date to clearly state the rule number or law they are alluding to as to why as a municipality they think they don’t need a bond so that defendant has an opportunity to verify and controvert. Judge’s signature __________ Date _____.

/s/ Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 24th

DEFENDANT’S ORIGINAL REPLY

Comes now Defendant ARON BENJAMIN GOINS, the GOINS FAMILY estate represented in propria persona by Goins Family head of household Goins, Aron: Benjamin “Ben” a man and Blakemore-Goins, Sharalyn: Grace “Shari” a woman which can be referred to collectively as the GOINS FAMILY and would state as follows:

GOINS FAMILY and its members neither Ben nor Shari are schooled in law and we requests leniency by the court on that this case be tried on substance rather than form. Especially concerning TXRCP #90, we will undoubtedly do a less well job in pointing out every little defect, omission and fault of the pleading but we reserve the right to expand on general demurrers to the maximum leniency allowed by the court as it is difficult for us both because of lack of education in law and from time crunch to be reasonably expect to catch each one. We reserve the right to supplement the pleadings within the time periods allowed and as directed by the court.

According to TXRCP #9, no more than two counsel on each side can be heard upon except in important cases and upon special leave of the court. Petitioner’s Original Petition has 3 counsel, and we are not aware of special leave being granted, and we object. Although we are flattered that Petitioner thinks that this case is important enough trying to bring about a bad faith quasi-eviction and injuring the rights of the GOINS FAMILY is such an important case that they need 3 counsel in apparent violation of TXRCP #9, we do OBJECT and leave it to the court to decide. It does seems like a lynching mob when there are 3 attorneys on one side versus zero on the other, so we believe that compliance with TXRCP #9 is in our best interest and request that the rule be followed.

The GOINS FAMILY generally denies the allegations of the petitioner.
The GOINS FAMILY generally points out that petitioner made a plethora of omissions concerning a diversity of issues including but not limited to the garage columns, tiny home regulations, issues concerning their identity, issues concerning their recent bad faith, and issues concerning their older bad faith, issues concerning grandfathering, issues concerning their civil rights violations and injuries, harassments and quasi-terroristic behavior towards the GOINS FAMILY.

The GOINS FAMILY does own a lot of land and also a multi-purpose building which is self-evidently a well constructed tool shed (TS), and which also has the capacity to be a Tiny Home (TH). To the best of our knowledge, the structure in question complies with International Building Codes.

The GOINS FAMILY does controvert petitioner’s claim that as a TS that there is something out of compliance with the building as we are not aware of any problem with the building. Specifically, we are not aware of either needing a TS permit from petitioner nor are we aware of petitioner being authorized to grant such a permit even if they wanted to. The TS is permitted by the TS owner i.e. the GOINS FAMILY and such permission is sufficient absent sufficient evidence to the contrary such as proof of agency for Fort Worth by the petitioner. As the easement holder, Fort Worth, might be authorized to grant such a permit but the GOINS FAMILY is not aware of being notified of such. Absent sufficient evidence that petitioner is an agent of Tarrant County or of Fort Worth, all of their claims of code enforcement fail.
The TS does conform with all customary setbacks, locations, foundation, and construction customary with TS’s in the United States, and Tarrant County to the best of our knowledge, controverted affidavit of the building inspector notwithstanding.
I
DISCOVERY ISSUES

Issues such as whether discovery level 1-3 is preferred by the court based on the pleadings on file.
The GOINS FAMILY acknowledges petitioner’s request in their petition that “Defendant is requested to disclose, within fifty (50) days of service of this request, the information or material in Rule 194.2 of the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure”, and the date of service was received on Oct 26th so 50 days from then is the timetable that we assume for the request unless otherwise indicated by the court. Petitioner’s request notwithstanding, GOINS FAMILY counter-requests that discovery not be initiated until after our pending pre-trial motions are heard including the conclusion of the requested investigation of the corporate status of SANSOM PARK. Perhaps after a pre-trial conference if the instant matter makes it that far even before dismissal. The exact date for the discovery timelines can be agreed upon and set.
II
PARTIES
GOINS FAMILY is aware that they are some type of municipality (“village”) but we are not aware of them being properly and publicly incorporated with the STATE OF TEXAS as evidenced by a letter we have from the Secretary of State. Whatever they are they. We have first hand knowledge that they do not appear to operate under the laws of the STATE OF TEXAS.
Defendant ARON BENJAMIN GOINS is an estate of the married individuals ARON BENJAMIN GOINS & SHARALYN BLAKEMORE – GOINS who domicile in TARRANT COUNTY and claim TARRANT COUNTY residency by virtue of owning land at LOT 18, BLOCK 24, FORT WORTH TX and can be served by alternative service by court order by properly affixing notice to their door, and can typically be summoned when not out of town on an extended trip by mail request to P.O. Box 137103 Fort Worth, Texas [76136].
III
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
The villages’ cause of action and desire to demolish a structure on the land is not consistent with the purpose of CHAPTER 211 of the TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. The structure they desire to demolish is of historical, cultural, and architectural significance and it deserves to be protected and preserved rather than demolished. It is of historical significance because it is the first tiny home in the village. It is of important cultural significance because tiny homes are becoming increasingly popular and represent a shift in the economy, a shift in cultural values, and a shift in the population as they are more popular with members of Generations X, Y, and sial. Additionally, the structure is the only thing of cultural significance in the village. The structure is of important architectural significance because it is full of novel and environmentally friendly innovations to maximize efficient use of space. Those innovation and a set of artisanal cabinets inside count as artistic achievements and should be protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution, and articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Human Rights Laws of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. Additionally, the removal of the structure would infringe on the GOINS FAMILY right to sue and be sued, as it is the only place for the GOINS FAMILY to receive service. Removal or demolition of the Tiny Home would infringe on the GOINS FAMILY freedom of religion by violating our place of worship. The village lacks authority to demand civil penalties against the GOINS FAMILY pursuant to subchapter B of chapter 54 of the Texas local government code because we assert that we are not in their village. We believe that no fine may be imposed unless we are first noticed in good faith of the result of the requested special investigation of the corporate status of the village. Fort Worth is not a Type A municipality and we reserve the right to a jury trial to determine the fine amount which should not exceed a one time 500$ fee for a code violation related to not having a tool shed/tiny home permit and that repeat fines for the same offense violate double jeopardy procedures. Note that the GOINS FAMILY has a standing Constitutional Challenge to all Texas State Statutes.
Jurisdiction of TARRANT COUNTY district court is proper since the land is in TARRANT COUNTY.
IV
FACTS
The village misstates the property description and omits the fact that the property is in FORT WORTH. The correct property description is Lot 18, Block 24, SANSOM PARK ADDITION, an Addition to the City of Fort Worth, Tarrant County, Texas according to the plat recorded in Volume 1850, page 346, deed records, Tarrant County, Texas. The land, if it had a mailbox, would have the address of 5410 Landino Street, fort worth, Texas 76114. The land is located within the city limits of Fort Worth, Texas.
8a. THE GOINS FAMILY admits that on November 4th, 2013 we submitted a building permit application to the village to install a 10 x16 portable building (“tool shed”) on the land. Exhibit A at first glance appears to be a true and accurate copy of the building permit application except that we do not remember and are not aware of the permit having been denied as exhibit A shows a checked box by Brittany Gross. We believe that part was left blank.
8b. We controvert that the city denied the building permit application and instead told us that they could not find out property on their map in spite of having been give our survey and that we needed to go talk to the City Of Fort Worth. GOINS FAMILY subsequently had delivered a pre constructed building to the land to await inspection by the City of Fort Worth, and does not the need the approval of the village and waives the benefit of a building permit application or inspection by the village.
9a. We controvert that “defendant has and is using the property and the shed.” At the time of petition being filed, September 30th, GOINS FAMILY was in Geneva. GOINS FAMILY was in Europe from August 31st – October 25th, and the village did intentionally mis-represent to this court in their complaint this fact knowing that no one, not even a car in the driveway had been on the land or entered the structure for over a month.
9b. We controvert that the tool shed is an accessory storage building as it is a multipurpose building including being a tool shed, but is a main structure, a Tiny Home and should be governed by RB 168-16 approved by International Code Council (ICC) written into International Residential Codes (IRC), and should not be treated as an accessory structure, nor should it be attempted to be classified as a typical residential structure using out of date codes.
9c. The GOINS FAMILY controverts that we allow any occupants to dwell or reside therein excepting domiciling by the GOINS FAMILY.
9d. We controvert that the Tiny Home is without private solutions for running water, sanitary sewer service, or electrical service. We controvert the need or desire and waive any benefits associated with using any running water, sanitary sewer service, or electrical service from the village.
9e. We object to exhibits B and C as used as they are in the petition as they only show an external picture of the tiny home, simply proving that it is there. This has nothing to do with proving other code violations.
9f. Exhibit D also shows a picture of GOINS environmentally friendly solar harvesting structure, proving that we have electricity. We object to the villages omission that the Tiny Home is not attached to the grid and thus approved electrical service nor fire code applicability is required. We waive the benefit of having our solar harvesting system inspected by the village, and we assert that the GOINS FAMILY, particularly ARONG GOINS, has sufficient electrical training and knowledge as a physicist and chemist to properly maintain our solar grid and secured outdoor batteries.
We affirm that on June 3rd, 2016 we were out of town in Galveston at Shari’s uncle’s retirement party and can prove it, so building inspector and petitioner’s claim that we were somehow residing there on that day are in bad faith as we were not even there that day. The building inspector’s affidavit as to it being used is a residence is made in bad faith or error or both. The building inspector’s affidavit of June 3rd is hereby officially controverted. We have reason to believe and do believe that this was done on purpose to make it look like the building inspector made a good faith effort to contact us, which he did not. The building inspector also claims to have come by the property on July 27th and on Sept 23rd which we have reason to believe since petitioners exhibit C and D are time stamped. To the best of our knowledge we were in town the day of July 27th and to the best of our knowledge the building inspector could have, had he wished to make a good faith effort, been given free access upon to inspect all of the GOINS FAMILY land. To the best of our knowledge a bevy of city officials and various police officers have ARON GOINS correct personal cell phone number.
We have reason to believe based on petitioner’s exhibit D and word of the building inspector that he once again came to our land on September 23rd, 2016 when were in Honfleur, France. The building inspector’s affidavit as to it being used is a residence is defective, made in bad faith or error or both. The building inspector’s affidavit of September 23rd is hereby officially controverted. There was no ongoing residential use as no one had been there in a month.
V
NO CODE VIOLATIONS
12 – 21. All of the ordinances the village says we are in violation of were passed after April 1st, 2013, the day we moved in. Reason would dictate that we would be ‘grandfathered in’ and not subjected to them. Additionally, GOINS FAMILY asserts that these predatory ordinances were passed specifically to target them with the goal of the village to steal our land without proper compensation in direct violation of Article 5 of the US Constitution.
VI
INJUNCTIVE RELEIF
21b. The villages’ cause of action and desire to demolish a structure on the land is not consistent with the purpose of CHAPTER 211 of the TEXAS LOCAL GOVERNMENT CODE. The structure they desire to demolish is of historical, cultural, and architectural significance and it deserves to be protected and preserved rather than demolished. It is of historical significance because it is the first tiny home in the village. It is of important cultural significance because tiny homes are becoming increasingly popular and represent a shift in the economy, a shift in cultural values, and a shift in the population as they are more popular with members of Generations X, Y, and millennials. Additionally, the structure is the only thing of cultural significance in the village. The structure is of important architectural significance because it is full of novel and environmentally friendly innovations to maximize efficient use of space. Those innovations and a set of artisanal cabinets inside count as artistic achievements and should be protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution, and articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Human Rights Laws of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The village lacks authority to demand civil penalties against the GOINS FAMILY pursuant to subchapter B of chapter 54 of the Texas local government code because we assert that we are not in their village. We believe that no fine may be imposed unless we are first noticed in good faith of the result of the requested special investigation of the corporate status of the village. Fort Worth is not a Type A municipality and we reserve the right to a jury trial to determine the fine amount which should not exceed a one time 500$ fee for a code violation related to not having a tool shed/tiny home permit and that repeat fines for the same offense violate double jeopardy procedures. Note that the GOINS FAMILY has a standing Constitutional Challenge to all Texas State Statutes.
(1)There is no issue pertaining to the preservation of public safety on the land excepting the dangerous garage columns. We waive the benefit of enforcement for our private safety. (2) There is no issue on the land relating to the preservation of public health. We waive the benefit of enforcement for our private health. (3) The land in Fort Worth is zoned single family to the best of our knowledge and we are a single family.
The village asserts that as a matter of law, according to Chapter 211 of the Texas Local Government code, that it is entitles to injunctive relief if it proves violation of a zoning ordinance. From the evidence provided in the petition, the only thing proven is the non-disputed fact that there is a tool shed/Tiny Home on our land, which is not in dispute. Based on the stated purpose of chapter 211, the village ought to protect and preserve the structure because it is historically, cultural, and artistically relevant. The structure they desire to demolish is of historical, cultural, and architectural significance and it deserves to be protected and preserved rather than demolished. It is of historical significance because it is the first tiny home in the village. It is of important cultural significance because tiny homes are becoming increasingly popular and represent a shift in the economy, a shift in cultural values, and a shift in the population as they are more popular with members of Generations X, Y, and millennial. Additionally, the structure is the only thing of cultural significance in the village. The structure is of important architectural significance because it is full of novel and environmentally friendly innovations to maximize efficient use of space. Those innovation and a set of artisanal cabinets inside count as artistic achievements and should be protected by the first amendment of the US Constitution, and articles 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and of the International Human Rights Laws of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The removal of the structure would infringe on the GOINS FAMILY right to sue and be sued, as it is the only place for the GOINS FAMILY to receive service. Removal or demolition of the Tiny Home would infringe on the GOINS FAMILY freedom of religion by violating our place of worship.
The GOINS FAMILY objects to the intentional mis-interpretation and misapplication of various codes and ordinances, including the dangerous building code, to imply that a perfectly good and manufacturer well constructed tool shed/Tiny Home which is and was fully compliant with international building codes at time of purchase is somehow in need of removal or demolition in bad faith. We deny that temporary restraining order was appropriate in the instant matter and object to the way it was served through inappropriate service. This action should have warranted sua sponte sanctions by this court, lacking which we have reason to doubt that a fair trial can be had in this county. We hope that this court will take appropriate action now that our pleadings are in. The bad faith of the petitioner is made self-evident by their assertions that we are living in a place when they knew we were out of the country since we gave notice to the US Department of State concerning our trip, which they are presumed to have had access to. All injunctive relief, be it temporary or permanent, should be denied on the basis of bad faith alone. If injunctive relief must be granted, it should be given only after the result of the requested special investigation into the village’s corporate status and after proof is given that we are in their jurisdiction and not Fort Worth, that they or Fort Worth as applicable update and train their code compliance officers to learn the new Tiny Home Codes, and that we be given notice and opportunity to comply with the new codes before being subjected to un-noticed or bad faithed noticed legal actions. We would like to point out that this proceeding has resulted in a quasi-eviction at least for two days of the GOINS FAMILY to our injury. It is unheard of to evict on such short notice as even renters are given 90 days notice. It is also considered cruel and unusual punishment to evict someone and cause homelessness during the winter months according to the 8th amendment of the US Constitution, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. It is nearly November and there will soon be snow. This problem is exacerbated by the lack of housing or shelter options the village has. The village hopes to evict us without providing an adequate replacement shelter and possibly shifting their duty to provide adequate housing to neighboring authorities, needlessly wasting resources. The way in which the law is construed to discriminate against Tiny Home owners for instant de-facto eviction, or in this case de-facto eviction without them being heard while out of country or properly noticed, is a major defect in the system that this court should take judicial notice of and take action to mandate be corrected by immediately ruling that all subordinate municipalities adopt the new international Tiny Home regulations for the purpose of protecting the public from predatory ‘municipalities’ like Sansom Park Village. We assert that we should be given immunity for all code compliance issues not correctly noticed or brought about in bad faith and not consistent with the purpose of the granting authority’s intent. To the best of our knowledge our Tiny Home is fully compliant with the new Tiny Home ordinances except possibly that we would need to install perhaps an extra escape window for the lofts and a ship ladder to access the loft. The bad faith and malice of the village is self-evident by their burning and single minded desire to destroy our structure at all costs, whereas a true government and proper use of the zoning and municipal police power would be to notice and assist getting their property in compliance, not use the defects in the law to bring about the ruin and homelessness of its subjects. The village is self-evidently not a government under the Texas Constitution. Their insistence on violating our human rights, insisting on denying us shelter and making us homeless, live in exile, involuntary servitude to them and hoping to steal our land for public use is not consistent with either Texas, US or UN law. We object to the patent unconstitutionality of what we call “skyscraper ordinances” which is where the government comes to your vacant field and starts writing you tickets for failing to have a skyscraper there. Tiny Home owners across America, in Texas and Tarrant County are suffering as they are being mandated to live in a mansion when they can only afford a more modest house which is essentially a criminalization of homelessness and an attempt to make homeowners lose their property in violation of the government’s responsibility to provide affordable housing.
We controvert the legality of enforcing a daily skyscraper law where the village intends to come out every day and say “ There is no skyscraper in this field give us a gold coin” and then come out the next and the next repeating the pattern. It is self-evident that the field owner will not be able to construct a skyscraper with his means and even if he could it would not be possible for him to do so in one day. In a similar fashion the village, intends to come out to the Tiny Home everyday and say “Did you build a mansion in front of it yet? No that will be $1000” and then repeating each day. Obviously we could not build a full scale house on our means and even if we could we would not be able to construct it in a day. Even if theoretically, we could build a house in a short amount of time say a month, the fines would be 30,000 the price of small house, which would double the price of the house at least. The end result of this tyranny is that the field owner would have to sell his land and move away in exile, and in the case of the instant matter the stated intention of the village is to demolish our structure and take our land the very definition of tyranny negating private property rights. The repeated daily fines are in direct violation of Double Jeopardy practices as well.
29-30. We controvert that they receive any money or that they should be allowed to not post a bond because of their bad faith.
VI
PRAYER
Denial of village restraining order, and denial of temporary or permanent injunctive relief for the village. Denial of any judgment for the village. We request all relief and compensation as this court deems just. We request this case be dismissed and an investigation into the true corporate status of SANSOM PARK be opened. We request Tarrant County to notice that our land is not a part of the entity known as “SANSOM PARK”. We request that Tarrant county adopt and mandate adoption of RB 168-16 approved by International Code Council (ICC) written into International Residential Codes (IRC) on Oct 23rd, 2016 by all of its subordinate municipalities. We request relief of an injunction barring Sansom Park from harassing us about code enforcement, and request agents of Tarrant County and funding from Tarrant County to come and assist us in becoming code compliant with RB 168-16. We request damages to reimburse us for hotel costs incurred as a result of this court’s TRO. We request a ruling on if municipalities have the authority to evict land owners off of their own land.

Certificate of Plea of Payment
Defendant enters a plea of payment in compliance with TXRCP Rule #5, that payment including indemnity and cash bond has already been received and has been sufficiently noticed to CITY OF SANSOM PARK on public records (see Goins vs. Sansom Park et al 4:14-CV-365-O).
/s/ARON BENJAMIN GOINS, Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ SHARALYN BLAKEMORE-GOINS, Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 24th

Certificate of Compliance with TXRCP #93
Defendant denies an account which is foundation of plaintiff’s action and has supported denial by affidavit. /s/ARON BENJAMIN GOINS, Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ SHARALYN BLAKEMORE-GOINS, Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 24th

AFFIDAVIT OF FOUNDATIONAL DENIAL

Comes now the GOINS FAMILY, Ben and Shari Goins.
We agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

The foundation of petitioner’s claim can be simplified in that petitioner claims we are a RESIDENT of the CITY OF SANSOM PARK and that we OWE them some large amount of money unless we let them DEMOLISH our a tool shed which is OUR property on OUR land.

We deny that we are required to let any entity demolish our property without our consent and without just compensation especially when brought in bad faith.

We deny any claim they have whatsoever concerning our land excepting if they can prove that they somehow have a contract with the CITY OF FORT WORTH giving them some power over the easement which is to the best of our knowledge based on the undisputed and judicially noticeable survey self-evidently in the CITY OF FORT WORTH then they need to Notice us of such agreement.
We deny ever receiving any notice of such an agreement and we are not a party to nor can we be expected to be bound by any unrevealed contracts between the CITY OF FORT WORTH and the CITY OF SANSOM PARK.

We admit that we mistakenly asked for a tool shed permit from the CITY OF SANSOM PARK many years ago back when we assumed that they had the power to grant such a permit, but they told us that they could not grant the permit because it was done through a contract company (metrocode if memory serves) done through the CITY OF FORT WORTH and that they could not find us on their map in spite of us providing them with a survey.

We deny any jurisdiction and do not admit the jurisdiction of the CITY OF SANSOM PARK, the old permit application notwithstanding.

We are now aware of evidence, combined with our personal fist hand knowledge that they are either unable or unwilling, to grant any permit whatsoever concerning our property because we are actually in the CITY OF FORT WORTH according to the paperwork in our possession (survey and deed).

We deny that there is any public safety hazard on a public easement on our property other than the garage columns formerly owned by RICHARD CARR’s company and very recently sold to a new RENTAL PROPERTY owner.

We admit we have already contacted the new owner to notice him that the encroaching safety hazard is going to be removed and did begin removal work today Oct 27th, 2016.

We deny that we have any contract with the CITY OF SANSOM PARK.

We deny that we have any obligation to be forced to buy anything from them in particular.

We waive all benefits with regard to/or from CITY OF SANSOM PARK as well if any exist.

NOTICE OF RESERVATION OF COUNTER-CLAIM
The pro se GOINS FAMILY does reserve the right to file a counter-claim once we finish reading rules on how to do so.

NOTICE OF DOMESTIC TERRORISM

We deny that the CITY OF SANSOM PARK is anything other based on its bad behavior (much of which is documented) and our first hand knowledge than a DOMESTIC TERRORIST ORGANIZATION which is tirelessly intent on bringing about to the GOINS FAMILY, harassment, discrimination, quasi-eviction from our tiny home, denial of shelter, cruel and unusual punishment, causing us to live in fear, denying us property ownership, denying us land ownership, wanting us to be its indentured servant, and its main goal of protecting its corruption.

We deny the deity of the “City of Sansom Park”, assert our right to religious freedom not to worship her dignity, we will not fight for her, and she is not our landlord. We believe the “City of Sansom Park” has no dignity to offend. We assert that we own our own land with an undivided interest to the best of our knowledge and that her identity is moot to us with regard to code compliance, however, it is important for us to learn her true identity so that we can enforce our claims against her injury to our dignity and rights such as well be set out in our counterclaim. Just as our founding fathers demanded no taxation without representation, we demand no municipality without municipal services. We reserve the right to form our own local government on our land and to vote to un-incorporate any false entity claiming to appear in violation of our inherent rights to property ownership, being free of fear and harassment, right to shelter and other rights associated with our land ownership and inherent human rights which she has repeatedly has demonstrated that she cares nothing for.

Respectfully submitted and Indorsed,

/s/Aron Benjamin Goins Date: Oct 27
Goins, Aron: Benjamin, a man, Inherent Rights Reserved, defendant in instant matter and petitioner in counter claim.
P.O. Box 137103 Ft. Worth, Tex [76136]
abengoins@gmail.com

/s/Sharalyn Grace Blakemore-Goins Date: Oct 27
Blakemore-Goins, Sharalyn: Grace, a woman, IRR, wife by lawful marriage and thus a claimant party to the instant matter, family member, authorized pro se representative of Goins Family Interests including Aron Benjamin Goins.
P.O. Box 137103 Ft. Worth, Tex [76136]
shargo.ths@mailflair.com

Certificate of Service:
I certify I am using the court approved efile system which will serve notice on all parties on record at time of this being filed at the date and time indicated on the filing. /s/Aron Benjamin Goins /s/ Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins Oct 27th.

Certificate of Conference:

We can conference with opposing counsel if they be willing to talk to us in good faith at hearing tomorrow on Oct 28th.
/s/ARON BENJAMIN GOINS, Aron Benjamin Goins I.R.R. /s/ SHARALYN BLAKEMORE-GOINS, Sharalyn Blakemore-Goins I.R.R. Oct 27th

AFFIDAVIT OF CONFERENCE
Comes now the GOINS FAMILY, Ben and Shari Goins.
We agree to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth so help us God.

We have reason to believe that the opposing counsel conferences in bad faith and that further attempts to conference with them is fruitless as they have no intention of behaving in good faith. Evidence of their bad faith includes them making a settlement offer and then refusing to put their offer in writing for us to sign after we conditionally accepted it. We have reason to believe they care less about code compliance and more about harassing us and attempting to make us homeless.

Court Info:
96th District Court
Judge R. H. Wallace, Jr.
Tom Vandergriff Civil Courts Building Attn: 96 Court.
4th Floor
100 North Calhoun Street
Fort Worth, TX 76196
817-884-2685

Party Info:

Petitioner CITY OF SANSOM PARK attorneys:
Wm. Andrew Messner STATE BAR NO. 13472230 andy@txmunicipallaw.com
Mack Reinwand STATE BAR NO. 24056195 mack@txmunicipallaw.com
Brett Gardner “dishonorable dog” STATE BAR NO. 24078539 brett@txmunicipallaw.com MESSER ROCKEFELLER & FORT, LLP
6351 PRESTON ROAD, SUITE 350 FRISCO, TEXAS 75034
Telephone: 972-668-6400 Fax: 972-668-6414

Defendant & Counter Claimant
ARON BENJAMIN GOINS estate
Represented pro se by Goins, Aron: B a man and Blakemore, Sharalyn: G a woman, collectively the GOINS FAMILY/GF/HOUSE OF GOINS with same contact information as stated above.

Tiny Home Halloween: How the Goins Family Successfully Fought Off Municipal Terrorism & Pioneered Tiny Home Law