DF-24-18010 Litigation Record Search

8/7/2025 3:08 AM DALLAS CO., TEXAS DF-24-18010 No, THE MARRIAGE OF § § & § JUDICIAL NOTICE OF UNRULED MOTIONS REQUIRING DETERMINATION PRIOR TO ANY PRETRIAL HEARING, TRIAL, OR FINAL ORDERS TO THE HONORABLE JUDGE RAY WHELESS: *Appearing as Pro Se, Not by choice, Respondent, Jason McKemie, respectfully files this formal judicial notice to the Court to identify multiple accepted and unrebutted motions that remain pending on the docket. These filings raise material issues of procedural obstruction, financial misconduct, medical harm, and denial of due process...

August 8, 2025, to preserve judicial continuity and ensure all pending relief requests are reviewed together. Respondent reserves the right to supplement this list and to request individual hearings, where necessary, to resolve each motion on its merits. Il. WHY TRIAL IS PROCEDURALLY IMPOSSIBLE Discovery never occurred. Although discovery requests were properly served, Petitioner's counsel window. Respondent was looped into communications with William Cook, revealing that shadow counsel involvement continued throughout this period. Then, 15 minutes befor...

1. Misrepresentation of a six-month fling instead of an actual marriage. 2. False claim that there was no commingling of assets or shared future. 3. Labeling Respondent as a deadbeat or leech. 4. Asserting Respondent was a non-contributor. 5. Alleging Respondent was abusive and spying on Petitioner. 6. Claiming the house was bugged with surveillance devices. 7. Testimony that Petitioner's sister confirmed the surveillance story. 8. Claim that Pam Woodman barely knew Respondent. 9. False claim that Petitioner was destitute. 10. . Misrepresentation that sh...

1. On Dec. 12°,.2024, Petitioner Gwen Ulijasz-McKemie saw a charge at a credit card charge at a family law practice. She immediately texted and called Respondent, who confirmed the charges legitimacy. Despite this legitimacy, petitioner reported Respondent's legal retainer, a $30k funds transfer for living expenses while recovering from surgery, and his rehabilitation equipment charges all as fraud. Severing him from counsel, and survival funds. 2. This act deliberately severed Respondent's access to legal representation during a critical procedural wind...

obtained an extension of her protective order against him and inserted new language specifically barring him from discussing her with third parties. This act effectively silenced a key witness and prevented his testimony. It constitutes direct witness tampering and represents irrefutable proof of the very behavior he intended to testify about. By preemptively gagging a known victim-witness, Petitioner provided the Court with stronger proof than any live testimony could have produced. V. SUPPRESSION OF EMERGENCY RELIEF AND JUDICIAL ACCESS 10. Since that f...

While Respondent does not make this allegation lightly, he respectfully asks the Court to examine Petitioner's conduct in this context: e Stripping Respondent of financial access during medical emergencies e Revoking medications following hospitalization for life-threatening infection e Cancelling access to legal counsel while stating she wanted to "support" him e Isolating him from health insurance, housing, and representation e Falsely weaponizing institutions to criminalize his behavior without cause These are not reactive or impulsive acts. They are...

And where Petitioner may have a dianosis which makes empathy impossible, and humanity out of reach-what's Sullivan & Cook's excuse? Every day that this obstruction continues, the damages increase - medically, financially, and legally. Vill. AGGRAVATED PERJURY AND MANIPULATED PROTECTIVE ORDERS 19. At the January 7 hearing and other procedural checkpoints, Petitioner and her attorneys submitted false sworn testimony that has never been adjudicated despite direct video and documentary evidence to the contrary. 20. These statements formed the foundation for...

...ings as a living record ensuring full judicial visibility and eliminating procedural ambiguity. 4. Set a hearing specifically to revisit the rulings issued on January 7, 2025, which Respondent asserts have irreparably compromised the fairness of these proceedings. Respondent alleges that these rulings were based on misrepresented financial documents, procedural fraud, and multiple counts of perjury and aggravated perjury. These rulings require formal correction and judicial review to preserve due process and ensure that the factual record reflects truth...

...ore trial risks prejudicial harm and may result in voidable rulings. Respectfully submitted, Jason McKemie Pro Se Respondent 539 W Commerce St, Suite #2010 Dallas, TX 75208 (214) 868-4901 imckemie@mckemie.net 9 of 10 Copy from re:SearchTX

RESPONDENT'S MISCLAIMER: PRO SE NOT BY CHOICE (PROCEDURAL IDENTITY THEFT DISCLAIMER) Petitioner did not merely file first - she intercepted Respondent's filing by fraudulently reversing his attorney retainer the day after his spinal surgery, she severed his access to counsel and funds. She withheld the retainer reinstatement until Friday to block re-engagement, then had attorneys work through the weekend to file first with a fabricated protective order - a calculated seizure of Petitioner status to construct a false narrative of abuse and victimhood, con...

...Miscellaneous Event Filing Description: JUDICIAL NOTICE OF UNRULED MOTIONS REQUIRING DETERMINATION PRIOR TO ANY PRETRIAL HEARING, TRIAL, OR FINAL ORDERS Status as of 8/7/2025 8:11 AM CST Case Contacts Name BarNumber Email TimestampSubmitted Status Kim Jones kjones@sullivancook.com 8/7/2025 3:08:33 AM SENT Jeffrey ECook jcook@sullivancook.com 8/7/2025 3:08:33 AM SENT Tiffany Castenada tcastenada@sullivancook.com 8/7/2025 3:08:33 AM SENT William CCook wcook@sullivancook.com 8/7/2025 3:08:33 AM SENT Ethan Scroggins escroggins@sullivancook.com 8/7/2025 3:08:...