Research Methodology

Last updated: July 27, 2026

Every factual claim on this site should be traceable to a document you can obtain yourself. This page explains how we get those documents, what we do with them, and where our sourcing has limits.

Source Hierarchy

When two sources disagree, the one higher on this list wins. We do not average them, and we do not pick the one that helps.

Ranks 1–5 are record. Ranks 6–7 are argument. The shaded rows are the ones that require hedging every single time, and they include our own filings — a pleading we wrote is not evidence that what it says is true.

What happens when sources conflict

• A pleading contradicts the docket — the docket wins. Rank 4 over rank 6, even when the pleading is ours.
• A published figure contradicts our page — the published figure wins, and it goes in the corrections log.
• An older record contradicts a newer one — we say both exist and date them, rather than silently preferring one. A discrepancy in the record is itself a fact worth reporting.
• We cannot resolve it — we say so on the page instead of choosing.

One consequence worth stating plainly: a court has made no finding of misconduct in the documented case. Everything we say about what opposing parties did sits at rank 6, and is written that way throughout.

Primary Sources We Use

1. Harris County District Clerk records

The case documented on this site spans four cause numbers, all public:

• Cause No. 202417675 — the underlying SAPCR, 311th District Court. The default Final Order was entered here on August 20, 2024.
• Cause No. 202353496 — a concurrent Habeas Corpus proceeding, same court. Relevant because service in it reached a different address.
• Cause No. 202592876 — the Bill of Review, 311th District Court, filed December 12, 2025, seeking to set aside the default order.
• Cause No. 202595850 — a civil suit in the 189th District Court against opposing counsel.

All are searchable at hcdistrictclerk.com. When we describe a filing, we name the cause number so you can pull it. We do not ask you to trust our characterization of a document you cannot find.

2. Texas statutes and rules

Cited by section: Texas Family Code, Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Texas Civil Practice & Remedies Code, Texas Penal Code. We link to statutes.capitol.texas.gov where practical so you read the text rather than our paraphrase.

3. Published Texas appellate decisions

Cited in standard form with reporter and year — for example Baker v. Goldsmith, 582 S.W.2d 404 (Tex. 1979), the controlling three-element test for a bill of review. We cite cases we have read, not cases we found cited elsewhere.

4. Government and institutional sources

The Office of the Attorney General for child support figures, the State Bar of Texas for grievance procedure, the Texas Judicial Branch for self-help resources. Where a figure changes over time — the child support cap, for instance — we give the effective date and tell you to confirm the current number at the source.

How a Claim Gets Onto This Site

1. Locate the primary document. A docket entry, filed pleading, order, statute, or opinion.
2. Read it in full. Not a summary, not a headline, not another site's description of it.
3. Classify it. Is this a docket fact, an allegation in a pleading, a court's finding, or our own inference? These are written differently — see editorial standards.
4. Cite it so a reader can retrieve the same document.
5. Redact anything covered by the rules below.

What We Redact, and Why

Attorneys are named where their professional conduct is the subject of a pending public proceeding, alongside their bar number and the fact that the allegations are denied. That is a deliberate line: professional conduct in a public filing is a matter of public record; private individuals' home lives are not.

Where Our Method Has Limits

Stating these is the point of having a methodology page.

• We describe one case in depth, not a statistical sample. Where we cite Texas-wide figures, they come from cited third-party sources and are labeled as estimates. One documented case demonstrates that a procedural gap can be exploited. It does not establish how often it is.
• We are a party, not a neutral observer. See the conflict-of-interest disclosure in our editorial standards.
• We report the record as it exists at time of writing. Dockets move. Pages carry dates; the latest case update is always the current posture.
• No attorney reviews our legal interpretation. Citations are checked; the reasoning built on them is not professionally verified.
• Opposing parties have not responded to every allegation we describe. As of the July 20, 2026 filing, the respondent in the Bill of Review had not been served and had no opportunity to answer. We say so where it applies.

How Updates Are Published

Case updates are published at dated, permanent URLs — for example the July 20, 2026 update. Dated pages are never rewritten to reflect later events; superseded updates carry a notice pointing to the newer one.

safesapcrtx.org/case-update is a permanent alias that always redirects to the most recent update. It is the one link that can be shared without going stale.

Checking Our Work

You do not need our permission. Ask us and we will send the filings directly — that is the fastest route, and it is offered to anyone. You can also search any cause number above at hcdistrictclerk.com and read the filings yourself; note that the District Clerk now requires a free registered account for Civil and Family records. If our description of a document does not match the document, tell us and we will correct it and log it publicly at our corrections page.