TEXAS COURTS COMMIT MULTIPLE VIOLATIONS OF "FRAUD ON THE COURT" ...AND EASTERN DIST. OF TEXAS FED COURT JUDGE MAZZANT DEFIES THE LAW AND DISMISSES THE CASE
HEAR HOW A WELFARE CALL CAN SEND YOU TO PRISON...NOT A HOSPITAL, WHEN DERELICT COPS AND EXCESSIVE FORCE GETS THE D.A. INVOLVED IN COVERING UP FOR THEM
https://www.spreaker.com/user/resurrecttherepublic/bailey-frisco-police-state-of-corruption
HEAR HOW A WELFARE CALL CAN SEND YOU TO PRISON...NOT A HOSPITAL, WHEN DERELICT COPS AND EXCESSIVE FORCE GETS THE D.A. INVOLVED IN COVERING UP FOR THEM
https://www.spreaker.com/user/resurrecttherepublic/bailey-frisco-police-state-of-corruption
FIRST LIVE SHOW.... IN AN UPCOMING SERIES
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
Paul Clarence Bailey Cause #
v.
Collin County D.A.‘s Greg Willis and Amy Byers Wynne
366th District Court Judge Ray Wheless,
Greg Gibbs and Mark Ledbetter,
The Court of Appeals Justices,
The Court of Criminal Appeals Justices
Frisco Police Department
Gov. Greg Abbott, and
Atty. Gen. Ken Paxton
This is a civil rights complaint for declaratory, injunctive and other appropriate relief, brought
by Paul Clarence Bailey, Pro Se Plaintiff. Bailey, brings this complaint for violations under the first,
second, forth, fifth, sixth, ninth, and fourteenth Amendments to the U. S. Constitution in violation of
42 U.S.C.1983, and pleads this complaint to the court.
Movant requests the Court be cognizant that this is a “Pro Se” pleading; and as such,
is not held to the same high standard of perfection as those of practicing attorneys. Movant
respectfully requests the court recognize the reason for such, where as this is a “Propria
Persona” without regard to technicalities as expected in such legal citing, but rather a sincere
attempt, not held in ransom to legalistic interpretations that tend to restrict a just process. See
HAINES v KERNE Et Al., 404 US 519, 97 at 594, 30 L Ed 2s 652, RE HALL v.
BELLMON, 935 F2, 1106 (10th or 1991).
Claim # 1 - Abuse of Process
Defendant Frisco Police Department (Ranking Staff) filed documents with the prosecution in
the 366th District Court, upon the Plaintiff, that were;
1
A) Knowingly erroneous of the actual events, as the original ‘Affidavit For Search
Warrant” dated on June29, 2009, was a falsely elaborated narration, in its depiction, and not factual.
B) A second ‘Affidavit For Search Warrant” dated 30,March,2010, bearing forged
signatures of deceased (suspiciously) police detective [Debra Stansell] ) to obtain a DNA sample,
was then submitted to the prosecution nearly 1 year later. (Plaintiff prays, this was done ONLY in
order to enter this fraudulent documents in the evidential record, and although this too is an act of
“fraud on the Court“ Plaintiff shall add that claim later in this suit)
In summation, the aforementioned was all done to first to obtain a fraudulent felony arrest
warrant upon the plaintiff, and then eventually used, in order to facilitate a prosecution for a crime
Plaintiff was knowingly not guilty of. This was all done in order to cover up the egregious display
of excessive force and police-assisted theft of the Plaintiffs property and identification that occurred
at Plaintiff’s home, due to Frisco P .D.’s acts being complicit and derelict.
Claim # 2 -False Imprisonment
The Collin County District Attorney (Greg Willis, Asst D.A.. Amy Byers Wynne ) , 366th
District Court Judge Ray Wheless , in collusion with Plaintiff’s defense attorneys Greg Gibbs and
Mark Ledbetter, The Court of Appeals, then The Court of Criminal Appeals, Frisco PD, then AG
and now Gov. Greg Abbott, and A.G. Ken Paxton.
A) set about a deliberate collusive strategy to defy justice and convict an innocent man, by
denying Plaintiff’s own explicit request REPEATEDLY to employ a defense strategy of “The Castle
Law Doctrine”.
B) Judge Wheless deliberately misled the jury by means of abstaining from proper court
instructions to the jury by instructing them to deliberate “from the actors perspective”.
C)The Collin County District Attorneys, denied exculpatory evidence of the known dash-cam
audio/video of second officer Roger Moore, that WILL exonerate the Plaintiff AND show that officer
Scott Greer was nowhere near the Plaintiff’s home when he discharged a warning shot at a perceived
burglar. Former AG Greg Abbott and current A.G. Ken Paxton knowingly and fraudulently ruled on
behalf of Frisco PD by referencing Government Code 552.108 which is inapplicable and gave
Frisco PD and the District Attorneys cover for perpetuating the malicious prosecution and their
2
withholding of much other audio/video exculpatory evidence from the multitudes of other officials
on the scene.
D) The repeated filings by the Plaintiff with the 366th District Court, The Court of Appeals,
then The Court of Criminal Appeals, were denied without a hearing and/or proper appellate
procedure on the numerous timely filed motions only facilitated and perpetuated the lower court's
malfeasance.
Claim #3 - Concert of Actions
The actions of all of the defendants were deliberate, malicious, and were performed in a
concerted manner, and meant in bad faith, meant entirely to cause the fraudulent criminal conviction
in order to conceal the actions of law enforcement, (most notably Frisco P.D.‘s) egregious display of
excessive force, dereliction of duty, improper police protocol/procedures, that led to the policeassisted
theft of Plaintiff’s property and identity.
All at an enormous waste of taxpayer dollars.
Claim # 4 - Conspiracy
Utilizing the State of Texas Criminal Justice System as a whole, the Defendants ALL
CONSPIRED in their individual capacities to facilitate and perpetuate an elaborate concealment of
evidence from both the Plaintiff and the public eye, the actions of law enforcement as a whole, made
the Plaintiff their “Scape Goat”, thereby strategically avoiding their own civil accountability.
Claim #5- Fraud on the Court
Although the most notable and important actions by the defendants has been concealing and
absconding with original untampered Audio/video(s), (Officer Moore’s dash cams most notably)
from the evidence entirely, despite a Judges court order in response to a Duces Tecum subpoena.
The criminally altered, deleted and/or erased, audio/video(s) that WAS provided to Plaintiff poses an
even more grave example of how police corruption and collusion with authorities can so easily be
facilitated to obscure how police vigilante mindset is actually displayed in response to a false claim
by one officer to another.
A courtroom is not the place to provide cover for such civil disobedience. Certainly not for
Dishonorably Discharged Ex-Officer Scott Greer of Frisco P.D. who is banned from court
3
testimony in Denton and Collin Counties. Certainly not at the cost of an innocent man’s liberty.
It is repulsive, and even more corrupt when judicial authorities willingly defy “the rule of
law” in order to cover up such a public disobedience and embarrassment.
To defy the rule of law in its purest form, should indeed be the most repulsive of crimes as
it defies justice itself. And although the Plaintiff makes his own complaint now, he asserts that
an inquiry into all of the involved Texas authorities, in this event, should be scrutinized by federal
authorities.
Claim #6- Malicious Prosecution .
There has been considerable legal debate as to whether a criminal conviction must be
overturned before a claim for malicious prosecution can proceed. However, the law provides that a
violation and/or absence of “probable cause” validates such a claim. For that is exactly what has
been absconded, the evidentiary facts that will disprove that any probable cause ever existed.
The Defendants have conspired to deny the truth, that will prove …..there never was
“probable cause” for an arrest of the Plaintiff, let alone a prosecution and conviction BECAUSE
THE PLAINTIFF NEVER COMMITED `ANY CRIME …AND THE DEFENDANTS HAVE
ALWAYS KNOWN THAT!! And if that’s not malice, nothing is!!
Prayer and/or Relief Sought:
Plaintiff prays for the court to provide a jury trial that will allow the Plaintiff AND the defendants a
venue that will make ALL accountable to a jury of their peers. The defendants have utilized their
formidable skills as legal professionals to prove that they can readily manipulate the system and
procure a criminal conviction upon a man THAT THEY KNEW, ALL ALONG, WAS INNOCENT!
Plaintiff thereby prays also that any and all relief due him be so assessed by a jury. AND,
that a federal investigation into the actions of the defendants stand scrutinized by federal
authorities, accordingly.
Signed this 20th day of April , 2017
____________________________________
I , Paul Clarence Bailey, Pro Se, (certify, verify or state) under penalty of perjury that the foregoing
is true and correct.
PO Box 265
Roanoke, TX 76262
THIS IS THE MOTION FOR DISCOVERY THAT FED.JUDGE MAZZANT DID NOT EVEN ALLOW TO BE CONSIDERED IN HIS DECISION !
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
SHERMAN DIVISION
Paul Clarence Bailey
P.O. Box 265
Roanoke Texas 76262
PLAINTIFF cause number;
VS.
Collin County D.A.‘s Greg Willis and Amy Byers Wynne
366th District Court Judge Ray Wheless
Law Firm and Greg Gibbs and Mark Ledbetter, Individually
The Court of Appeals Justices
The Court of Criminal Appeals Justices
Frisco Police Department
Gov. Greg Abbott
Atty General Ken Paxton
DEFENDANTS
MOTION TO COMPEL DISCOVERY UNDER RULE 16
Now comes Paul Clarence Bailey, Pro Se indigent, and moves to
compel discovery as mandated by Fed. Rule Crim. Proc. 16 (a)(1).
The Facts and legal arguments supporting this Motion are set
forth herein. Movant requests the Court be cognizant that this is a
"Pro Se" pleading; and as such, is not held to the same high standard of
perfection as those of practicing attorneys. Movant respectfully requests
the court recognize the reason for such, where as this is "Propria
Persona" without regard to technicalities as expected in such legal citing,
but rather a sincere attempt, not held in ransom to legalistic
interpretations, that tend to restrict a just process. See HAINES v. Kerne
Et. Al., 404 US519, 97 at 594, 30 L Ed 2s 652, RE Hall v. Bellmon 935 F2
(1)
FACTS OF THE CASE
On June 29 , 2009, Paul Clarence Bailey, was arrested and charged
in a one count indictment for Aggravated Assault with a Deadly Weapon
(Tex. Penal Code 22.02).
At trial, Bailey was sentenced to 5 years. The trial was held in the
366th District Court of Collin County.
Plaintiff has repeatedly attempted to recover the State's Exhibit
#4 - the original, unaltered recording of 911 dispatcher, Delanna Copeland,
AND any "body cam" as well as the complete vehicle audio/video recordings
of arresting officer Scott Greer ; AND the vehicle dash-cam of back-up officer
Cpl. Ryan Moore, BOTH of the Frisco City Police Department. This evidence
was presented by the prosecution at trial (see Volume 2-Pg. 6-L-6 thru Pg 9-L-6).
ARGUMENT
On June 28th, 2009, Paul Bailey's son, (Ricky P. Bailey) made a
felonious/malicious 911 telephone call to The Frisco Texas Police Dept.
He erroneously asserted that his father was suicidal, as part of an
elaborate scheme to rob his father's home.
Although there were many controverting facts available to
invalidate the call (such as the caller 's ID conflicted with caller's
stated location, etc.), 911 Operator Delanna Copeland decided to dispatch
two separate officers , in two separate cars, to the initial "welfare
call", to Paul Bailey's residence at 6515 Winston Dr., Frisco, TX.
Officer Greer arrived first , with his dash-cam audio/video
operational, and Officer Moore arrived several minutes later .
Without waiting for Moore to arrive, Greer decided to go to the
residence alone. Greer's dash-cam and audio were operational as he
approached. Officer Moore arrived several minutes later as Greer was
moving away from the residence.
(2)
Moore's cameras were also operational at this point. But, it
would be Greer's actions (approaching a house for a welfare call alone) that
were in direct violation of police department(s) policies and protocols.
This, Greer's very derelict actions, would set the stage for the massive
display of excessive force by the Frisco police and various police agencies , their
vigilante mindset being revealed, became the catalyst to this absconding
evidenciary debacle.
Police protocol demands that both officers approach together.
Simply stated, there are 3 recordings (Copeland's, Greer's, AND
Moore's) that combined will illuminate all of the events of that fateful
night. The only audio/video recording(s) released has been the criminally
altered one from Greer and Claussen,... BUT NOTHING from officer Moore's
dash-cam.
The Frisco Police Department continually refuses to release
the evidence of all of these recordings. Which constitutes an overt
attempt to malign justice and cover-up the malicious acts
perpetuated by the Police, as well as this malicious prosecution that
has followed.
This and other illegal acts that include:
1) manufactured evidence and the forged signature(s) of now ( very suspiciously)
deceased, lead detective Debra Stansell (forensic report attached)
2) tampered audio/visual evidence (affidavits attached)
3) the 366th Court Judge Ray Wheless' order to seal (unknown) files from
the defendant (See Docket entry)
4) Former Officer Greer's Dishonorable Discharge and ban from
testimony due to illicit affair with rape victim (whose case he worked),
which was uncovered by Texas Rangers upon her death.
(3)
The extensive results by all of the audio/video experts can be found in Paul
Bailey's Habeas Corpus (11.07) and Motion To Set Aside and Vacate
Void/Default Judgment filed in the 366th District Court of Collin
County and The Court of Criminal Appeals, in Austin.
ALL HAVE BEEN DENIED WITHOUT A WRITTEN ORDER . WITHOUT REVIEW,
WITHOUT A HEARING ... JUST DENIED, OR SIMPLY DISMISSED .
FACTS SUPPORTING ARGUMENT
Plaintiff has requested the audio/video evidence mentioned above three
separate times, as has a private citizen AND an independent news reporter from
the City of Frisco and a separate request from the Attorney General's office. The
City of Frisco has taken the position that “…. they do not have to.........
produce the evidence because it falls under Tex. Govt. Code 552.10B(a)(1)” -
evidence related to an on-going investigation (what investigation? Ricky Bailey, the
911 caller had already been investigated, charged, convicted and served his sentence) ; and
the Attorney General's office has erroneously validated this opinion, thereby giving
the City of Frisco leave to ignore the requests.
However, this is a misapplication of law and/or mis-interpretation. The
statute that this evidence falls under is Tex. Govt Code 552.108 (a)(2) - evidence
dealing with the detection, investigation, or prosecution of a crime only in
relation to an investigation that did not result in conviction or deferred
adjudication. Plaintiff asserts that the Defendants continually withheld the evidence
initially to convict him, and now to deny him justice all together! As this evidence
would/will have exonerated him and incriminated the City of Frisco for their gross
dereliction and over all malfeasance.
(4)
The recordings will clearly show that:
1) Officer Greer approached the residence alone and several minutes
prior to Officer Moore's arrival;
2) Officer Greer did not "knock and announce" to attempt to identify
himself as a police officer; and
3) Officer Greer was nowhere near the front porch of the residence when the
firearm was discharged, having approached stealthily/provocatively; and
contrary to law.
4) That the actions as a whole, by the various police agencies was significantly
responsive to the initial actions and conversations between officers Greer and
Moore AND it was their COLLECTIVE ineptness that is really at issue here.
5) The need for law enforcement to conceal their malfeasance made the then
defendant a “scape goat” and he was then methodically framed for their crime to be
concealed.
These points taken together , totally negate the prosecution's assertion
at trial, should ALL of the audio video be considered …..and would have
exonerated the plaintiff!!
Purpose of Sec.455, for example: "If there is [any] reasonable factual basis for
doubting the judge's impartiality, he should disqualify himself and let another
judge preside over the case. See U.S. v. Will 101 5.Ct. 480 (1980). Trial judge,
Judge Mazzant, had already ruled against plaintiff previously more than once.
Plaintiff asserts that this has demonstrated a tainted perception of this Plaintiff's
causation that shows culpability and partiality in his malicious prosecution by the Texas
judiciary.
.
S.B.161; In 2013, the 83rd Legislature passed otherwise known as the Michael
Morton Act (which took effect on January 1, 2014) stipulates the rules ensuring
prosecution and law enforcement produce the electronic copies of all
evidence and information in their possession.
(5)
S.B. 825; The Prosecutor Accountability Act ( enacted June 2013) sets forth
rules regarding prosecutorial misconduct or when a prosecutor violates
his or her ethical responsibilities. In the trial record (Vol.2 Pg. 6-L-6 thru
Pg. 9-L-6), Defense attorney, Gibbs, addressed the court regarding how
State Prosecutor, Ms. Byers, previously made it clear that the State would
make all evidence and information in their possession available to the
defense. Ms. Byers replied that “If they do not have the video evidence ,
and if it is no t already in the packet delivered to the defense, then the
defense will not have it for trial”. Court-Appointed attorneys continually
ignored requests to properly investigate the suspected tampering (prior to trial).
Constitutional Law - 268 (5): Suppression by prosecution of evidence
favorable to the defendant upon request violates Constitutional Due Process,
where evidence is material either to guilt or punishment irrespective of good
faith or bad faith of prosecution. U.S.C.A. Const. Amend. 5,14. See Kayles v.
Whitley 115 S.Ct. 1556 (1995).
Judgment 559: Common law did not bar convict in Receiving Stolen Property case
from bringing (1983) action against police officers claiming they had
procured conviction by altering transcripts of the tape recording, withholding
exculpatory evidence, and suborning perjury. Common law would not bar
re-litigation of issue of plaintiff's criminal guilt if prosecution had procured
conviction by fraud. See King v. Goldsmith 897 F.2d 886 (7th Cir.1990).
In trial record (Vol. 4 Pg. 64-L-8 thru Pg. 70-L-5), State Prosecutor, Ms.
Byers, questions Officer Greer if the recording Was an accurate copy of the
recordings made that night. How can the recordings be accurate when defense
expert can prove the recording has been altered, partially erased, and tampered
with? (See Plaintiff's 11.07). Later in the record (Vol. 2 Pg. 9-L-8
thru 9-L-19), Ms. Byers addresses the court informing the court that
Cpl. Ryan Moore will testify to the contents of the recordings.
(6)
Fed. Rules Evid. 1002, 1004) Where the rule applies, the proponent
must produce the original (or a complete, unaltered duplicate as per .
The rules application turns on "whether contents are sought to be
proven" by non-documentary evidence, even by non documentary evidence,
even though a written record of it was made. "Accordingly, the rule is
inapplicable when a witness merely identifies a photograph or video tape"
as correct representation of events which he saw or of a scene with which
he is familiar (Id.)(See also U.S. v. Workinger 90 F.3d 1409, 1415 (9th
Cir.1996).
CONCLUSION
In summation, the Frisco Police realized AFTER they had committed inept derelict
acts of excessive force. Vigilante-ism, they had committed gross malfeasance they enlisted
District Attorney of Collin County, the City of Frisco, The 5th Court of Appeals ,
Court Criminal Appeals ,and the Attorney General's office to conceal their
acts.....The final verdict as to Gov. Abbott awaits his response to a certified mailing of an
inquiry to his position. He is named now because of what this now Plaintiff believes to have
already been an adequate amount of time to respond. All in all, a conviction was rendered on
FALSE information , because the police and prosecution have absconded with the the most
pivotal information but denying it'!!
ITS REALLY THAT SIMPLE...A LIE IS A LIE , EVEN WHEN
THE TRUTH IS ELIMINATED
(7)
Within the realm of this, a Pro Se pleading, and being cognizant
of the fact that in such the plaintiff is not held to the same
high standard as a practicing attorney; the question as to his
rights being perhaps being better served, a writ of Prohibition
was considered. Certainly since these State Agents (the defendants)
have absconded with the exculpatory evidence and refuse to release it, this
Pro Se plaintiff will defer to the wisdom of this Court
as to how to best proceed.
Regardless, the evidence is unavailable and is exculpatory. The flimsy
rationale given by the City of Frisco and upheld by the Attorney
General's office is just one more piece of evidence of their complicity
and collusion to commit fraud upon the court.
Respectfully Submitted,
Paul Clarence Bailey, TDCJ-ID# 1833504
Pro Se
PO Box 265
Roanoke, Texas 76262
WHEN YOU ARE REALLY TO SEE ALL THE AMAZING EVIDENCE OF WHAT I CONTEND IS THE WORST CASE OF MALICIOUS PROSECUTION IN THIS COUNTRY'S HISTORY OPEN THIS LINK TO SEE ALL
THE ACTUAL EVIDENCE
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0A0RQkG9cOET0NmSzI2Q0huN28/view
AND OF COURSE, SHOULD YOU WISH TO READ HOW THE JUDGE GETS AROUND "CONSIDERING ALL THE REAL EVIDENCE" ...AND THEN MAKES HIS DECISION ...HERE IS A LINK TO THE ACTUAL COURT ORDER
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1dVwAuI4_UFqxdnSjQoWlDXg2NEOeS603fugi0vfglJo/edit