2) The next item is the grounds against "Attorneys" Gregg Gibbs and Mark Ledbetter that are contained in the Writ of Habeas delivered to Collin County Courthouse in February 2014.
3) The third items are the affidavits that they just sent to the Judge.
4) Then we will show you the emails the emails back and forth to their offices where Mr. Bailey was trying to get them to investigate the facts of the case, he also laid out his strategy for his defense in the attachment that we have printed and scanned.
Here are the facts supporting the Grounds against them (please bear in mind there are several other Grounds and the reading is very interesting, but these are the ones that pertain to the two Court Appointed Public Pretenders who we assume perpetrate that fraud on a daily basis upon both the public and any unfortunate soul that gets them appointed to their case.
FACTS SUPPORTING GROUND FOUR:
- Counsel deliberately misled Applicant by stating the sound on lapel mic recording was a gunshot, when it was static background noise and not the sound of gunshot.
- Trial counsel ignored the fact that Joe’s initial texts to previously counsel, Raphael Delagarza were different from the final report.
- Applicant’s counsel failed to question about the 5 minute blanked spot where there is no audio in the Claussen Video.
- Counsel failed to question Joe about the syncing of the lapel & car videos and investigate the missing gunshot on the lapel mic, which would have proven that Greer was not where he said he was and that no assault occurred.
- Applicant’s counsel did not challenge the State’s failure to provide ALL evidence to Applicant before trial. In fact, to this day, much evidence has still been withheld despite the Attorney Generals directive to turn it over to Applicant.
- Counsel ignored Officer Greer’s multiple breaches of police protocol. Counsel failed to question the credibility of the 911 emergency dispatch caller which evidenced that the caller while stating he was out of state was, in fact, in Fort Worth, Texas.
- When Prosecutors showed a timeline “showing” that communication for several hours occurred with Applicant, Applicant asked counsel to object because it was not supported by forensic evidence, Mark Ledbetter told his Client to “Shut the (expletive) up”.
- Counsel did not point that Greer's recorded statements impeached his testimony when he stated that “I don't think he could see me though” and “Have Dispatch call the RP (reporting party) and have him call him and tell him it's the (expletive) Police!”
- Applicant’s counsel further accepted the position during questioning at trial that the erased portion of the recording was a glitch, rather than tampered evidence. Counsel failed to ask Greer why a beep occurred prior to blank 4 second spot if he never turned off his mic, thereby proving that the altering party knew the idiosyncrasies of the L3 Mobile Vision System, but did NOT know (at time of tampering) that Greer's testimony regarding his routine would contradict the beep and blanked out spot.
- Counsel failed to obtain witnesses, experts, analysis that could have assisted in a competent defense. Counsel failed to provide the court with police reports of the police assisted theft that occurred after Applicant was arrested.
- Counsel refused to raise Applicant's strategy of defense even though he confirmed his agreement (to the court) to utilize this strategy. It is for this reason and this reason only that Applicant agreed to have him represent him.
- Counsel failed to introduce Son's arrest and incarceration record, Multiple threats and text to “leave his stuff outside” as support for the state of mind of the Applicant.
- Counsel failed to point out the fraudulent, retroactively altered “original” indictment and ask why would an indictment time-stamped almost 18 months prior to the Motion to Amend with the exact same font and phraseology, need to be “amended”?
- Counsel failed to point out that in no way, is Applicant responsible for the bogus 911 call made by his son to 911, or 911 Operator and Police making no less than five (5) critical errors in their duties which led up to the event.
And here's the emails proving they knew Mr. Bailey suspected such and also laid out the strategy that they were to employ with his case or he would represent himself. Now that was the fly in the ointment, what if Mr. Bailey represented himself and made sure that all pertinent evidence was uncovered. I fully expected him to do so. Why? Because as Mr. Bailey's friend, I wrote his opening and closing statements in the nights prior to his trial and we laid out exactly what was to be presented in his defense. I was stunned to find out he had attorney's representing him at the last moment.