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

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

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

Paul Clarence Bailey                                                                                Cause # 417 -CV 00276

v.

Greg Willis; Et Al

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO PLEAS BY THE DEFENDANT THE FRISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S OBJECTIONS TO THE COURT’S RULING TO DISMISS

Plaintiff 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, whereas 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).

Now comes Paul Clarence Bailey, Plaintiff Pro Se, and responds to yet another redundant motion of “Rambo Lawyering” by the defendants that take turns filing such, in their  attempts to disregard the rule of law, inundate the court with frivolous motions, while attempting to include/collude with the federal court sympathetic to their illegal acts being exposed. All while attempting to evade justice being served and detract from their considerable acts of violations of the constitutional rights of the Plaintiff, via their “Fraud on the Court” activities.

 NOW they ask the court to ignore all of it and respond to issues that are irrelevant, in light of the court’s own introductory “History”, that is substantial to the aforementioned, as “opening the door” to a proper enlightening objection by the Plaintiff.

Plaintiff further submits that their latest appeal being made directly to Judge Mazzant, (as well as Magistrate Johnson, which Plaintiff submit is but another ruse to distract from their ultimate intentions) of addressing Judge Mazzant in their latest motion. All which, is but a conclusive act, by the Defendants meant ONLY to obtain a favorable response by his (Judge Mazzant’s) intervention in some capacity, is a clear act of his subjecting his bias. Notably, in this case, that Plaintiff has REPEATEDLY requested his recusal previously.   A request that is clearly justified in accordance to the rule of law, and NOW stands acclimated.

Therefore, another request for recusal is now being set forth, AND in all respect, Plaintiff feels is in the best interest of Judge Mazzant, as well.     As the Defendants actions have clearly risen to acts that are not simple acts of judicial pandering, BUT CLEARLY rise to a level of  criminal intent.

Plaintiff submits that the Defendants claims are essentially BEST summarized in this type of opening paragraph, from their latest motion, as “PLEASE SAVE US JUDGE! WE ARE ABOUT TO BE EXPOSED! OUR LEGAL CAREERS ARE AT STAKE, AS IS OUR REPUTATION, FOR THE CONSTITUTION VIOLATING, CORRUPT TREASONOUS ACTORS OF ‘FRAUD ON THE COURT’ SOCIAL REPROBATES THAT WE ARE, TO OUR ELECTING CONSTITUENCY, AND THE PUBLIC AT LARGE.”

The Frisco PD’s Motion to Dismiss is based on the pleadings and legal defenses, including immunities, statute of limitations, and other straightforward legal issues…                       

RESPONSE #1, THERE ARE NO SUCH DEFENSES FOR “FRAUD ON THE COURT” NOR “CONSPIRACY”, ACTIONS THAT NOW INCLUDE THIS COURT BEING THE DFENDANTS LATEST ATTEMPT, AT SOLICITING COLLUSION AND PERPETUATING FRAUD…… 

  Plaintiff’s objections do not address these defenses or state why they are inapplicable.           REPEAT RESPONSE #1. …..
 

  Further, Plaintiff’s objections do not point out any legal error in the Report and Recommendation, which correctly applies the cited law therein….THE LAW “STATED THEREIN” IS THE COURT’S REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS, WHICH IS PREDICATED UPON PERPETUATED “FRAUD ON THE COURT” THAT CHANGES THE COMPLEXITY OF ISSUES …….  ( When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect. Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 N.D. Ill. 1962)

Rather, Plaintiff continues to collaterally attack his criminal conviction and those that were involved in the arrest, prosecution, and related matters…… THE FACT THAT A 1983 CLAIM IS “AN ALLOWABLE VENUE TO DO SO, IS BUT ANOTHER POINT IN CONTENTION….AND DEFENDANTS KNOW THEY CAN NOT DEFEND THEIR ACTS OF FRAUD, AND CHOOSES RATHER TO SKATE AROUND ON THIN ICE THAT WILL ASSUREDLY BREAK!                                                                                                                                  

  Frisco PD’s Motion to Dismiss is based on the pleadings and legal defenses, including immunity, statute of limitations, and other straightforward legal issues…                                
“THE POINT IS” THAT THE COURT’S RECOMMENDATIONS ARE PREDICATED UPON A PERPETUATED ‘CONSPIRATORIAL’ ACTS OF ‘FRAUD ON THE COURT’, ARE NOT APPLICABLE IN SUCH ACTIONS   

 The Frisco PD contends that Plaintiff’s objections are without merit, do not address the legal defenses the Frisco PD raised in its dis-positive motion, and fail to identify any legal error in the………                
THEY’RE JUST KIDDING, RIGHT??!!   SO, ATTEMPTING TO INCLUDE A FEDERAL COURT MAGISTRATE….AND NOW A JUDGE, IN ACTS OF PERPETUATED ‘CONSPIRATORIAL’ ACTS OF ‘FRAUD ON THE COURT’ BY THEM, AND THEIR COHORTS WITHIN THE STATE JUDICIARY, IS SUPPOSE TO BE A LEGAL DEFENSE BY FRISCO PD AND D.A. WILLIS’ OFFICE ????? PLAINTIFF CONTENDS THAT SUCH ACTS WILL NOT SURVIVE A MINIMAL APPEAL.                                                                                                                                                                                                              

Perhaps, their status is most relevant to the court’s analysis first under Rule 60(d)(3)—i.e., should the courts be more flexible and willing to set aside judgments in cases where the victim was not adequately represented by counsel when the fraud occurred …. (AS THE DEFENDANTS WERE THE SO-CALLED REPRESENTING COUNSEL THAT CONSPIRED TO COMMIT THE FRAUDS)

A “concerned citizen” (after not receiving an explanation from The Texas Rangers) and the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the F.B.I. office in Dallas some time back, as to why Agent Richard Volaskas was involved (which they acknowledged as being “very unusual’), AND submitted considerable documents including phone records that we will be following up on shortly as to their own investigation results. (we have not yet, as mention that a S.S. Agent was also involved, as listed on Frisco P.D. “command roster”).

Regardless, there should be some considerable concern as to this case being in “the County” that shares the title as the “MOST CORRUPT COUNTY IN ALL THE U.S.”, as precedence for the court to consider ALL it’s options.

WHEREFORE, PREMISES CONSIDERED Plaintiff submits that this case, now before the court, involves serious infractions by the Frisco Police Dept. in collusion with the various State of Texas DA’s and the Judiciary, which perpetuated the intentional fraud.

Frisco Police’s actions, having transpired over the past approx.. 9 years and have consequently cost the Plaintiff the loss of his home, his entire life savings, including ALL his possessions, THEN they incarcerated him for 5 years. They then, denied him proper medical attention, hoping him to die while incarcerated (a fact that has much substantiating evidence, which includes denying him medication prescribed by Parkland Hospital in Dallas while he was incarcerated “illegally” there, as well as trips from the prison, to hospitals for poisoning)

ALL THIS, to cover-up their egregious excessive force, civil malfeasance, and avoid the public from the knowledge that he was in reality, protecting himself from a burglary, that THEY THEN DID bring to fruition!  An act that required that their numerous acts of “Fraud on the Court” be accomplished to cover-up for Frisco P.D’s considerable constitutional violations and civil malfeasance… with the assistance of their cohorts!

These FACTS are now set before the court, because their considerable violations of the rule of law managed to even induce this court into excepting their “HISTORY” fraud narrative!

Consequently, such a dismissal even being considered “with prejudice” is nothing less than an OBSCENE gesture, denying justice to an innocent man, convicted ONLY by fraud, initiated by The Frisco Police, to secure a conviction. A perpetuated fraud that they have NOW  sold, even to this court.

Haven risen to a monumental case, of not simply malicious prosecution, (that should certainly be remanded to the trial court to be properly disposed of), BUT ALSO involves acts by the Defendants to conspire to collude with this federal court in acts of bias, with desperation, intent ONLY upon saving their political hides, ….that the court NEED NOT be entrapped in.

A special notation is made to remind the court just how deep the ominous nature of this case is. The court should consider that Plaintiff’s assertion that Det. Debra Stansell being “deceased by suspicious means” is NOT his alone, but that of family members as well. AND why would the FORGED signature of this deceased detective be the ONE that appears on ALL the court documents that set Frisco P.D,’s “fairy tale” story of fraud so colluded??!! A woman that just so happens to die an “unsuspected suicide” that becomes the instrument for so many forged instruments AND could have singularly vindicated the Plaintiff in his jury trial, as the person that knowingly SOLICITED the burglar to Plaintiff’s home against his will. (see Stephen Rosas Affidavit) These facts NOW set substantiating circumstances/evidence that undeniably calls for a proper investigation (the court’s own inquiry, will reveal a white-washed one previously). Plaintiff IS CLEARLY stating that he believes Debra Stansell is far more than an unwitting liar, that required her signature be forged on fraudulent police documents, and she was likely the victim of this “sinister plot” originally hatched by Defendants Frisco P.D., Collin County D.A., and Gibbs and Ledbetter counsel to the now Plaintiff, and thereby constitutes a Capital Murder investigation to ensue!!

This case IS FAR MORE than meets the eye, and the Defendant’s NOT EVEN ATTEMPTING to dispute the fraud allegations, should set the court back on it’s heels! Bad cop decisions costing good cop lives is NOT the Plaintiff’s concoction, it is a documented fact of what this crazed “blue line” fraternity of corruption has brought to civil society to cover up corruption, excessive force, and malfeasance such as the Frisco P. D. IS guilty of. All at the expense of an innocent man having HIS WHOLE LIFE STOLEN by them! God have mercy on the many other members of the judiciary that have then turned their backs on SO MUCH evidence and allowed it to go unchecked…. HOPEFULLY, THIS COURT WILL SEE A WAY, TO SET A REMEDY IN MOTION TO RECIFY THIS GROSS INJUSTICE!

PLAINTIFF THEREBY, sets forth his “Motions(s)Objecting to the Courts Dismissal” to stand as proper filings, that he submits righteously, AND that the Defendants latest motion set precedence of Defendant Frisco P.D.’s attempt of collusion to commit bias, as reason for Judge Mazzant to recuse himself. THEN, A CHANGE OF VENUE BE GRANTED!

Perhaps, then have a proper review by the court can be accomplished, of ALL Plaintiff’s submissions in his previous motion(s), in a proper reconsideration ruling.

One that will not require the Plaintiff to be led down the defendants “Rambo Lawyering” “Rabbit Trails” in future legal actions, that HE WILL pursue should justice not be served now.

Click on this link to view all the IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE/EXHIBITS that Judge Mazzant decided DID NOT rise to "Fraud on The Court" an offense that does NOT allow for immunity !

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U20n1JgvvDItOV6r9acZB2AdKfNJeEOh/view

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS

SHERMAN DIVISION

Paul Clarence Bailey                                                                                Cause # 417 -CV 00276

v.

Greg Willis; Et Al

PLAINTIFF’S RESPONSE TO COLLIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY WILLIS AND ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY WYNNE’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF’S [PRESUMED] OBJECTIONS TO THE REPORTAND RECOMMENDATION
OF THE MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Plaintiff 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, whereas 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).

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff MUST reiterate his previous motions “Introduction”

Our judiciary was founded upon a Judaic/Christian ethic; therefore, Plaintiff emphasizes the following Biblical passages.

2 THESSALONIANS 2:11 So, God will send them something powerful that leads them away from the truth and causes them to believe a lie ERV

  And since they’re so obsessed with evil, God rubs their noses in it—gives

them what they want. Since they refuse to trust truth, they’re banished to their chosen world of lies and illusions. MSG

ARGUMENT

Plaintiff, first submits that his argument for “Objection” can NOT be better articulated, and it needs only to simply review properly Plaintiff’s already submitted original, “Objection to The Courts Ruling to Dismiss. As it conflicts/disputes Defendants, “acts of desperation” response, it has filed, while setting issues before the court that reflect serious concerns of a citizenry tired of police malfeasance being covered-up by local D.A.’s.!

Plaintiff further submits, that the court ruling, IS predicated solely on further perpetuating Defendant’s fraud, exposing their acts of treason. Although Plaintiff is confident that they will be eventually viewed by the public at large, as just that.

Anything that is built upon a lie cannot be reconciled by reason, NOR any interpretation of laws of this country.

Nowhere can it be found that a Plaintiff must be subjected to defending himself against fraud, once it has been properly revealed, simply to appease the Defendants demand for a legal premise that no longer is applicable in their defense, in redundant motions.

It is the courts responsibility to rule justly upon the ALL the evidence before it, not for the Defendants desperation to be allowed to be repeatably argued to the court! Attempting to somehow to detract, and negate the truth being said to be the truth!

For the court had previously set it’s ruling upon the acceptance of a lie, act of “Fraud on the Court” perpetuated statements within its “History” narrative segment, unwittingly defining the very core substance of the Plaintiff’s complaint, and “Opened the Door” by doing so.

Consequently, the Plaintiff simply set forth the REAL facts in his original “objection” motion, to set the record straight, along with the evidence to substantiate such, PROVING the acts of “Fraud on the Court” by the Defendant’s take precedence over their assertion of Plaintiff not being led down their “rabbit trail”.

Itself a fraud, perhaps unintentional by this court, regardless stands corrected in Plaintiff’s objection, in accordance to “the rule of law”.   As a lie (fraud) is still a lie (fraud) regardless how many times, or by whom, it is told.

It is NOT some “usual Pro Se” submission to the court, as suggested by the Defendants, but their journey of desperation pent to “somehow” convince the court, that “The Rule of Law” no longer matters. Pompous attempts to distract from the exposing egregious offenses they have committed, that are considered to “shock the conscience”.

Accusing the Plaintiff of “disparaging the Magistrate Judge”, shows not only their pompous disregard for the rule of law, and attempts to distract the court from the fact that “Fraud on the Court” rises to the level of “Treason”, that is FAR more important to address, attempting to making this court a party to their “fraud on the court” while hopefully providing them refuge?

Any criminal conviction formulated upon fraud, stands as what is considered to be an “egregious conduct which goes beyond merely offending some fastidious squeamishness or private sentimentalism and can fairly viewed as ‘brutal’ and ‘offensive to human dignity’ as to ‘shock the conscience’ Although the courts tend to speak of that which ‘shocks the conscience’ largely in context of excessive force claims it can apply to other areas of government activities as well”…Goldford v Town of West Hartford 474 F. SUPP 2d 370 (2007)

The requisite for, “fraud on the court” occurs where “it can be demonstrated, clearly and convincingly, that a party has sentiently set in motion some unconscionable scheme calculated to interfere with the judicial system’s ability, impartially to adjudicate a matter by improperly influencing the trier of fact or unfairly hampering the presentation of the opposing party’s claim or defense.” Aoude v. Mobil Oil Corp., 892 F.2d 1115, 1118 (1st Cir. 1989) . . . . The trial court has the inherent authority, within the exercise of sound judicial discretion, to dismiss an action when a litigant has perpetrated a fraud on the court, or where a party refuses to comply with court orders. Kornblum v. Schneider, 609 So. 2d 138, 139 (Fla. 4th DCA 1992).

When judges act when or they enforce a void order, they become trespassers of the law, and are engaged in treason. The Court held that “not every action by a judge is in exercise of his judicial function. … it is not a judicial function for a judge to commit an intentional tort even though the tort occurs in the courthouse. When a judge acts as a trespasser of the law, when a judge does not follow the law, the judge loses subject-matter jurisdiction and the judge’s orders are void, of no legal force or effect. Yates v. Village of Hoffman Estates, Illinois, 209 F. Supp. 757 (N.D. Ill. 1962)

            "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not in essence a decision at all, and never becomes final." The 7th Circuit 512, ¶ 60.23. 

Plaintiff respectfully submits, that the court’s “History” should read “fraud on the court, perpetuated”, because its ruling stands as simple just that, perpetuated fraud.

Plaintiff also believes very sincerely, that this court should be cognizant that the Defendants have tried very hard to drag it into their sewer of “fraud on the court” to obscure their being exposed, AND assist them in FURTHER denying justice to “a man they have known all along was innocent”!

                                        CONCLUSION

Plaintiff realizes that the court has within its discretion and requests the court to rule that the Plaintiff’s criminal conviction be remanded to the trial court to demand it rule upon his “Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Void and Default Judgment”, in accordance with law.

By denying a hearing on such and ruling without considering the facts, it has neglected its judicial responsibility, and will encourage District Courts to inflict similar acts upon others, seeking justice.

*** In fact, the trial court’s failure  to do so caused  Plaintiff  to exhaust his state remedies, while simply kicking the can down the road, to this Federal Court. Which, simultaneously defied justice. Because at that point, Plaintiff sincerely believes that IT already knew the entire prosecution’s case was formulated upon fraud AND consequently it’s JURY HAD BEEN LIED TO!  

No conviction could have been obtained absent tampered audio/visual

evidence and a forged affidavit from a deceased detective.

A “Void Judgment” can NOT be considered final by ANY court, EVER.

“Trial Court has NO discretion to refuse to hear and rule on a motion for Default Judgment, because a refusal to timely rule on such a motion frustrate the judicial system and constitutes a denial of due process of law” Re. Martinez Ramirez 994 S.W. 684

 In Re Sandel “the courts have confirmed the judicial power AND the courts responsibility to correct a VOID judgment”.

Plaintiff submits that should the court NOT reconsider, it has done nothing less than further perpetuated the Defendant’s fraud, while being incidentally subjected itself, to the Defendant’s considerable nefarious scheme, simultaneously obstructed justice.

Plaintiff respectfully wishes his considerable grief concerning the events that has transpired because of his malicious, fraud laden prosecution, which he has admittedly “passionately presented” to the court, to have justice FINALLY served.

He sincerely hopes his words have NOT risen to the level of “disparaging the Magistrate Judge”, NOR does he make any assumption as to the court’s responsibility.

In conclusion, Plaintiff  respectfully requests the court

1)                                   rule that the Plaintiff’s criminal conviction be remanded to the trial court rule upon his “Motion to Set Aside and Vacate Void and Default Judgment”  and

2)                                   to  not dismiss this civil case.