Friday, January 5, 2018


WHEN COPS HIDE BEHIND OUR CORRUPT COURTS TO COVER FOR THEIR EVIL WAYS

..........EVERYBODY CLAIMS IMMUNITY

BUT, NOT THIS TIME !!!



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 FINAL MOTION IN RESPONSE TO
DEFENDANTS  MOTION TO DISMISS


INTRODUCTION

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, whereas this is a
Propria Persona” without regard to technicalities as expected in such legal citing by
professional attorneys, 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).


            The court has before it  the task of resolving the legal issues within the Plaintiff’s complaint, that sets forth issues for the Defendants that has serious financial, political, and criminal  implications.   The court must not allow the complaint to be dismissed solely upon the Defendants assertions that they have “immunity” from conspiracy and crimes against humanity.  The law does not allow for “immunity” in cases such as this.    Plaintiff's “Motion Requesting a Hearing” on these matters is again urgently requested.

            Plaintiff responds to Defendant's assertions by emphatically pointing out (yet again) that the Defendants do not have such rights because they have conspired  “under the color of law” to commit acts of fraud within their individual roles as official(s) of the government.
1)   The question before this court, is simple for a country that claims to value integrity and accountability for government officials.  It is whether Defendants (in their official capacities) can utilize and or engage in acts of fraud on the court, by using and creating falsified and criminally altered evidence, submit forged documents (one in particular constitutes “abuse of process”) to the courts, commit perjury and violate the oaths that they swore as elected officials…..OR chose to uphold these most egregious crimes, that has caused great suffering, while COMPLETELY denying the rights of a citizen of the United States.   In addition, higher court/appellate officials ignored these facts, and failed to correct the false charges and void judgment upon being properly notified of detection.
Morality is an attribute that cannot be put on and then taken off like a pair of dirty trousers at the whim of a municipalities desire to ignore or deny their responsibility to its citizenry, simply by framing an innocent man of a crime he didn’t commit. Regardless as to some feeling of a need by officials to set a sacrificial lamb forth as a such, insisting they “take one for the team”. Such directives, by those sworn to serve and protect is reprehensible!
Indeed, there has been far too much grief suffered at the hands of these people, only to detract from,… or conceal grave dereliction, excessive force, and insubordinate leadership, that needed a “Scape Goat” to conceal from the public, serious, faulty official discretion.

JUSTICE IS CALLED FOR, REGARDLESS AS TO WHOM HAVE BEEN THE ORIGINAL VIOLATORS OF AN INNOCENT MAN’S CIVIL RIGHTS, BEING EVENTUALLY AND SYSTEMATICALLY FRAMED BY THEM, AND THIS CONSORTIUM OF  OFFICIALS!

            I want to say so much, that first, in so much that the circumstances are most unfortunate, and that the Plaintiff, never intended for such to be a consideration for any of them at all.

            2)  DEFENDANT'S SHOULD HAVE THOUGHT ABOUT SUCH WHEN THEY WERE DOING WHAT THEY DID, AND/OR SO EASILY DISMISSING THEIR “SWORN” DUTIES, KNOWINGLY ALLOWING AN INNOCENT MAN TO BE CONVICTED FOR A CRIME, THEY KNEW FROM THE VERY ONSET HE WAS NOT GUILTY OF,WHILE EXASPERATING THEIR ACTS OF CONSPIRATORIAL FRAUD!

            3)  Upon much personal reflection at this time, Plaintiff would like to dismiss his claim against Gov. Abbott, because he believes that he was “snookered/lied to/misled/inadequately informed” into his ruling by Frisco P.D. while serving as Attorney General, ….as to their being an ongoing investigation, ….because of the “Theft of Property” charges initiated against Plaintiff’s son.
This event, was in his opinion “used” to give the appearance of an ongoing investigation that allowed Frisco P.D. to withhold the evidence that would… and still can …exonerate the Plaintiff of criminal charges, that perpetuated the Defendant’s actions into an extensive cover-up . That being officer Moore dash cam STILL BEING WITHHELD.  As are the recordings of the other officers of various agencies at the scene.  
Further  Plaintiff recalls that the then “A.G.” Abbott DID IN FACT ORDER IT RELEASED,… but Frisco never complied with that order and has withheld much Brady Evidence.
A.G. Paxton however, was privy to much foul play in this case and was directly informed of the misappropriation of the law, when he became involved and was complicit to the City of Frisco's civil liabilities, and ruled intentionally inappropriately. Plaintiff feels his involvement was very complicit to the overall conspiracy unfolding.

            The very essence of the purpose of the court is being challenged, not by a convicted felon, but by Law Enforcement (Frisco P.D.)….should the Plaintiff be required to refile and/or amend his complaint and then name the 43 officers listed on Frisco P.D.s official roster, including the U.S.S.S. Agent, as well as F.B.I. Agent RICHARD VOLASKAS and others is up for consideration,
 State Prosecutors (D.A.'s of Collin County), A District Court Judge (Ray Wheless of Collin County), Officers of the Court (Gibbs and Ledbetter) , who orchestrated and perpetuated the  fraudulent case of malicious prosecution from the onset in order to cover up Frisco P.D.'s malfeasance have solidified their roles as conspirators, in numerous ways.
Plaintiff’s “so-called” conviction, only to be affirmed by the most absurd ruling imaginable by the Court of Appeals in Dallas (whose ruling cited another case in which a “bomb threat” precluded rescheduling a hearing), has yet to reveal the participation of Dallas County Courts through the court of District Judge Teresa Hawthorne as a  key player in a possible amended or renewed Complaint, not to mention change of venue, as the pivotal  players allowing Plaintiff’s “Motion for New Trial” to be a matter of yet great debate and possible to be yet another complaint in collusion.
The denied without even the slightest of review after numerous timely/direct correspondences to  The Court of Criminal Appeals, reeks of deliberate pandering to Judge Wheless’ maligned ruling.
 The denial of due process by A.G. Paxton, solidifies his role in this case as being, by this time, riddled with fraud and official error that he perpetuated!
            Plaintiff does not, nor has he in his past motions “rehashed” his case.   The Defendant's assertions that the case has somehow already been “affirmed” as some kind of justification or legal argument for their fraud, only gives credence to the fact that justice in ANY COURT OF LAW IN TEXAS could not be secured. Leaving Plaintiff with his last motion to “Vacate a Void Judgment” in the trial court.   This motion was also ignored against any lawful precedence, leaving no other option but to file this 1983 civil complaint in federal court, having exhausted all state remedies.

            A MOTION FOR A VOID JUDGMENT, MUST HAVE A HEARING, AND NEEDS TO BE EXPLAINED TO JUDGE RAY WHELESS ( and Judge Hawthorne of Dallas County), AS FAILURE TO DO SO “FRUSTRATES THE ENTIRE JUDICIAL PROCESS” ( Martinez Ramirez 994   S.W. 684) .   JUDGE WHELESS' FAILURE TO ACT ON THESE ISSUES ALONE VALIDATES PLAINTIFF’S RIGHTS TO PURSUE THIS CAUSE OF ACTION, 1983 COMPLAINT.

            The constitutional rights of the plaintiff were denied from the onset of a fraudulent 911 “welfare call” of highly questionable means, that should have been resolved peacefully. Such did not give any officer the right to trespass on private property and beat on a citizens resident door around midnight, neglect the coveted “knock and announce” and then lie to fellow officers about the actions of a resident that never happened, PROVOKING A LYNCH MOB to respond, THAT WOULD EFFECTUATE THE “PATSY/ FRAMIMG” OF AN INNOCENT MAN BY OFFICIALS, TO COVER FOR THE POLICE MALFEASANCE…AND CIVIL LIABILITY.
            Nor does it give the right for Frisco P.D. to serve an instrument on the court to obtain an arrest warrant that was fraudulent, untruthful AND a forgery, (abuse of process) JUST TO COVER UP THE OFFICERS DERELICTION AND ESTABLISH THEIR “SCAPE GOAT”.
            It certainly does not give the police the right to fraudulently alter/erase actual police audio/video files (numerous of times) so they could conceal from the public their gross malfeasance.
            Nor does it give the Ex-Cop “Public Defenders” (Gibbs and Ledbetter) the right to conspire to cover up the tampered audio/videos by providing their client with a false and clearly proven by numerous qualified experts, video and audio experts, fraudulent forensic report that denied THE TRUTH… that the case presented against him was an absolute fraud!
            I am certain that Detective Debra Stansell (deceased by suspicious means/alleged suicide just shortly before the trial...THAT WAS NOT GOING TO GO ALONG WITH THE MALICOUS PROSECUTION)... family are not happy with the fact that her FORGED signature was the one on a fraudulent police report given to the jury that depicted the events of the incident immensely skewed from the documented facts WHILE I WAS OUT OF THE COURT ROOM, TO CONVICT AN INNOCENT MAN!     Debra Stansell took to her grave her dignity and oath of office to serve and protect, ALONE!
            And, I for one, never told judge Wheless to omit from his “Jury Instructions the MOST IMPORTANT LINE IN THE LAW'S DESCRIPTION that says they are to “decide from the actors position”...because anybody that would have done that WOULD HAVE ACQUITTED, and between him, the prosecutors and defense lawyers experience that would have been clearly a game changer...THEY CONSPIRED !
            Or the right to present numerous other exhibits, such as the totally fraudulent “timeline” to the jury that was wholly fraudulent.

            ALL OF THE DEFENDANTS WILLINGLY CONSPIRED AND PARTICIPATED IN THIS MALICOUS PROSECUTION, ...AND MALICOUSLY CONSPIRED, PROGESSIVELY AND PREMEDITATED THIER ACTIONS  THAT THEY ALL KNEW WAS NOTHING MORE THAN A “STAGED PERFORMANCE” AGAINST SOMEONE THEY KNEW FROM THE VERY FIRST DAY WAS INNOCENT,  EVENTUALLY  COSTING THE PLAINTIFF, HIS HEALTH, HOME, ALL HIS POSSESSIONS AND ALL OTHER FINANCIAL WEALTH AND MEANS OF MAKING A LIVING.

            Plaintiff asserts that the defendants did not have to do what they did, but did so in order to appease a powerful municipality that could and would compensate their political careers in one way or another as a favor, in order to conceal embarrassing and costly consequences!

            THERE IS NO LAWFUL IMMUNITY FOR SUCH ACTS OF CONSPIRACY TO COMMIT FRAUD ON THE COURT FOR ANYONE. NOT CITIZEN OR PUBLIC OFFICIAL!
           
            The defendant’s redundant assertions to have such immunity is a vile insult to the criminal and civil judiciary system of this nation, and laws that confirm that fact are irrefutable.    The defendants appalling propensity to tell a lie over and over again and insisting that is truth, is their own personal psychological deficiencies and they do not belong in a court of law.
           
            Therefore, it should be abundantly clear that this Plaintiff will simply set forth the law as it is, and set before this court that the “supposed rehashing” is but the only way in which to set the record straight and on an even keel with the purpose of the Plaintiff's complaint be adjudicated properly.   The court must allow a hearing on these matters, as this case represents a blatant slap in the face to justice and a system that is sworn to uphold such.

            It must also be made clear that the plaintiff intends to pursue the Defendants to the gates of hell, and watch as they pass through! For there is still a God in Heaven, that is looking down and seeking restitution for injustice, such as this !

            Plaintiff, reaffirms the arguments he has made in previous motions in response to Defendants motion to dismiss, as MORE THAN ADEQUATE to defeat any claim to immunity they may make, as being clearly unlawful and a egregious breach of accountability to the public at large!         He thereby moves that said motion to dismiss be DENIED!


STANDARD OF REVIEW  FOR PLAINTIFF’S PREVIOUS RESPONSE

            Plaintiff will, ONCE AGAIN,  prior to his addressing/ accentuating the “Conspiracy” and “Fraud on the Court” acts by the Defendant(S) address an issue he feels very passionate about concerning the bias by Judge Mazzant’s COURT, and that any and/or all previously filed motions and/or court orders have/are subject to scrutiny, in regard to both jurisdiction and the Judge’s personal involvement in this case, that remains challenged by the Plaintiff, in that he (Plaintiff) submits the case sets itself in Mazzant’s own “corrupt” backyard within north Texas, most specifically Collin County, and that, Plaintiff submits he has already demonstrated that he has an underlying interest to silencing Plaintiff’s voice/claim !

            That Courts have repeatedly stated that Section 455(a) "requires a judge to recuse himself in any proceeding in which her impartiality might reasonably be questioned."   Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).    In Pfizer Inc. v. Lord, 456 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1972), the Court stated that "It is important that the litigant not only actually receive justice, but that he believes that he has received justice."     The Supreme Court has ruled and has reaffirmed the principle that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice", Levine v. the United States, 362 U.S. 610, 80 S.Ct. 1038 (1960), citing Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14, 75 S.Ct. 11, 13 (1954).     A judge receiving a bribe from an interested party over which he is presiding does not give the appearance of justice.   "Recusal under Section 455 is self-executing; a party need not file affidavits in support of recusal and the judge is obligated to recuse herself sua sponte under the stated circumstances." Taylor v. O'Grady, 888 F.2d 1189 (7th Cir. 1989).
            It is therefore presented that only now Plaintiff is faced with presenting this response to said court, without an assistance of counsel, and remains indigent indirectly, but ONLY BECAUSE OF THE DEFENDANTS ACTIONS.    This motion in response, meant to defeat Defendant’s motion(s) for dismissal is therefore done under duress.

            Plaintiff has brought his suit ultimately to achieve a civil remedy of his “Malicious Prosecution” via the Defendant(s) “Abuse of Process” in which they achieved his “False Imprisonment”, within their “Concert of Actions”, that has left him with no other remedy at law.

            Therefore such, having caused him to file his civil action, and consequently this response to their “Motion to Dismiss” he must ACCENTUATE that he has been required to file a response on legal citings by the Defendants that ARE ALL SUPERCEDED BY ANY LACK OF IMMUNITY BECAUSE OF THE CORE ISSUE BEING THAT THEY HAVE DONE ALL WITHIN “A CONSPIRACY”, (which Plaintiff will address first).  And secondly, the USE OF JUDICIAL ACTS THAT CAN ONLY BE DEFINED AS “FRAUD ON THE COURTwhich shall also be addressed,  as these are most poignant to the Plaintiff’s response,

            Plaintiff  believes, both of these issues should have prompted the Judge,  upon the initial filing of their “Motion to Dismiss” by the Defendants, to have been denied without a need for the Plaintiff to even respond to such an invalid motion, considering the original complaint’s numerous validations of both “Fraud on the Court” and Conspiracy” to be exempt from ANY immunity!  
CONSPIRACY

            The Defendant(s) actions were collusively compiled within a scheme, utilizing KNOWN falsified documents, audio/video, manufactured evidence, perjury, forgery, and other various forms of fraud All this done entirely with the intent upon framing the Plaintiff to conceal Frisco P.D.’s assisted theft, dereliction, excessive force, and overall municipal malfeasance via obtaining a criminal conviction upon him in order to conceal yet even more massive dereliction and excessive force by various authorities of OTHER police authorities under the direction and/or in collusion with Frisco P. D.

            AFTERWARDS, the acts by the various branches of the judiciary having involved themselves in perpetuating said events, and then by neglecting the overwhelming proof of the evidentiary facts presented in the appellate process, that had previously been….. fraudulently submitted…. to a jury, THEY then neglected/corrupted the ENTIRE  judicial appellate process of the State of Texas, including the office of the Attorney General and Governor.

            Supreme Court's ruling in Griffin v. Breckenridge.   The resurgence of conspiracy actions under section 1985(3) was not limited to private actors. Within a decade of the decision in Griffin, conspiracy claims became commonplace in civil rights actions against governmental actors. In most cases, section 1985(3) was used in conjunction with other remedial statutes, especially actions under 42 U.S.C. section 1983." The civil conspiracy provisions of section 1985(3) follow the tort analog of conspiracy law. The civil conspiracy provisions of section 1985(3) follow the tort analog of conspiracy law. In order to recover from conspirators, a plaintiff must be "injured in his person or property" or "deprived" of a "right" conferred upon citizens of the United States. Constitutional violations of deprivation of property or a citizen’s freedom are considered egregious violations to the free citizenry of The United States.
            "Every person who, under color of any statute . . . causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or another person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law . . . ." 42 U.S.C. § 1983

            Support for civil rights violations was not always clearly remediable under statutes like section 1983. But in 1871, the Reconstruction Congress anticipated the possibility that government might conspire to violate newly-recognized civil rights, and enacted both civil and criminal statutes to discourage such activity. The sole federal statute that expressly creates conspiracy liability for civil rights violations is 42 U.S.C. § 1985 (hereinafter also "the Conspiracy Statute") was then enacted. This statute was part of the Civil Rights Act of 1871, a piece of Reconstruction legislation that also included 42 U.S.C. § 1983. In its most pertinent provision, known as section 1985 it would, however, then provides that: If two or more persons. conspire.., for the purpose of depriving, either directly or indirectly, any person or class of persons of the equal protection of the laws ... ; in any case of conspiracy set forth in this section, if one or more persons engaged therein do, or cause to be done, any act in furtherance of the object of the conspiracy, whereby another is injured in his person or property, or deprived of having and exercising any right or privilege of a citizen of the United States, the party so injured or deprived may have an action for the recovery of damages occasioned by such injury or deprivation, against any one or more of the conspirators.'

            Although section 1985(3) was part of an ambitiously-styled "Act to Enforce the Provisions of the Fourteenth Amendment," it was seldom used in the century following its enactment.' Like its companion statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, section 1985(3) (the Conspiracy Statute) was enervated by restrictive interpretations of "state action" and the constitutional protection afforded by the Fourteenth Amendment. However, in the latter part of the 20th century, the Warren Court increased the legal significance of both statutes by dramatically expanding it.

            42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (1988). A companion statute to § 1985 is § 1986, which provides as follows:

Every person who, having knowledge that any of the wrongs conspired to be done, and mentioned in section 1985 of this title, are about to be committed, and having power to prevent or aid in preventing the commission of the same, neglects or refuses so to do, if such wrongful act be committed, shall be liable to the party injured ... for all his damages caused by such wrongful act, which such person by his reasonable diligence could have prevented ....There is NO immunity provisions or exception to police authorities, Prosecutors, or Judges in any capacity of the judicial process, nor Government Officials.

            42 U.S.C. § 1986 (1988). As courts have repeatedly affirmed, liability under § 1986 is premised on the finding of a conspiracy as set forth in § 1985. See, e.g., Creative Environments v. Estabrook, 680 F.2d 822 (1st Cir. 1982); Carter v. City of Emporia, 543 F. Supp. 354 (D. Kan. 1982). 5. See generally Mark Fockele, Comment, A Construction of Section 1985(3) in Light of Its Original Purpose, 46 U. CHI. L. REv. 402, 404-20 (1979) (discussing the origin of § 1983); see also supra note 4, for a discussion of the statutory predecessors to § 1985(3). [Vol. 57 2 Montana Law Review, Vol. 57 [1996], Iss. 1, Art.

            Defendant(s) “CONSPIRATORIAL ACTS”  and  “FRAUD ON THE COURT” is therefore provided to the best of Plaintiff's abilities,  and to the attention of the court.   This motion (as do his other motions), clearly and irrefutably provides the information about the legislation, that shows that the Defendants actions, in this case, negates any immunities that they wish to assert in defense of their  “CONSPIRATORIAL”  crimes against the Plaintiff.

FRAUD ON THE COURT

            The fabrication of evidence by a party in which an attorney is implicated will constitute a fraud on the court." Id. at 1338 (citing to Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co., 322 U.S. 238, 64 S.Ct. 997 (1944)).
            Fraud on the court is limited to fraud that does, or at least attempts to, "defile the court itself," or that is perpetrated by officers of the court "so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudicating cases." Courts have repeatedly ruled that judges have no immunity for their criminal acts. Since both treason and the interference to such improprieties to judicial process are criminal acts, no judge has immunity to engage in such acts.
            Moore's Federal Practice 3d ¶ 60.21[4][a] (3d ed. 2003). Thus, a "fraud on the court" is a fraud designed not simply to cheat an opposing litigant. Such events "corrupt the judicial process" or "subvert the integrity of the court." Oxxford Clothes XX, Inc. v. Expeditors Int'l, Inc., 127 F.3d 574, 578 (7th Cir. 1997); Pumphrey v. K.W. Thompson Tool Co., 62 F.3d 1128, 1131 (9th Cir. 1995) (citation omitted); Transaero, Inc. v. La Fuerza Area Boliviana, 24 F.3d 457, 460 (2d Cir. 1994).

            “Fraud on the Court” is marked by an "unconscionable plan or scheme which is designed to improperly influence the court in its decisions. There is no difference or way to delineate from fraud that is utilized in the actual court case OR in court filings to the court in defense of some action that can NOT be substantiated by the official court record of evidence previously submitted and further perpetuated upon a filing seeking relief for such fraud. A lie retold is still a lie. " Dixon v. CommissionerNo. 00-70858, 2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 4831, at *11-12 (9th Cir. Mar. 18, 2003), amending 316 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2003), or by "egregious misconduct directed to the court itself." Greiner v. City of Champlin, 152 F.3d 787, 789 (8th Cir. 1998) (citation omitted).

            In Bulloch v. United States, 763 F.2d 1115, 1121 (10th Cir. 1985), the court stated "Fraud upon the court is fraud which is directed to the judicial machinery itself and is not fraud between the parties or fraudulent documents, false statements or perjury. ... It is where the court or a member is corrupted or influenced or influence is attempted or where the judge has not performed his judicial function --- thus where the impartial functions of the court have been directly corrupted." such as instructions to a jury that skews the intent of the law deliberately


            "Fraud upon the court" has been defined to "embrace that species of fraud which does, or attempts to, defile the court itself, or is a fraud perpetrated by officers of the court so that the judicial machinery cannot perform in the usual manner its impartial task of adjudging cases that are presented for adjudication." Kenner v. C.I.R., 387 F.3d 689 (1968); 7 Moore's Federal Practice, 2d ed., p. 512, ¶ 60.23. The 7th Circuit further stated, "a decision produced by fraud upon the court is not, in essence, a decision at all, and never becomes final."

THE NEXT POST HAS ALL THE IRREFUTABLE EVIDENCE

Monday, October 2, 2017


   TO THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION
THAT VALUES ACCOUNTABILITY 

AND THOSE WHO CARES ABOUT GOOD COPS DYING TO CONCEAL BAD COPS 

I HAVE POSTED A BRIEF SUMMATION AS TO THE MULTIPLE LEGAL MOTIONS I HAVE FILED IN MY CASE, WITH A HYPERLINK TO EACH, AS THEY ARE TOO LONG TO POST IN THEIR ENTIRETY. 

PLEASE REVIEW THEM TO UNDERSTAND JUST HOW FAR TEXAS CORRUPT CRIMINAL JUSTICE SYSTEM WILL GO TO CONCEAL CORRUPT, EXCESSIVE FORCE, DERELICT COPS FROM FACING JUSTICE, AND SEE HOW YOUR COURTS MAKE A COMPLETE MOCKERY OF JUSTICE

KEEP IN MIND THAT EVERY SINGLE STEP OF THE SO-CALLED APPEAL PROCESS ENDED WITH.. DENIED....WITHOUT A HEARING ....AND/OR REVIEW .....OR EVEN A HEARING

ALL THIS PROOF AND THE PUBLIC HAS BEEN KEPT IN THE DARK, AS JUST HOW VULNERABLE THEY ARE IN THEIR OWN HOMES!!!
PLEASE TAKE A CLOSE LOOK AT EACH OF THE FIRST TWO LINKS CONCERNING THE FED CASE,.... THEN THE OVERWHELMING EVIDENCE THAT MEANT NOTHING TO THE COURT(S) WHICH IS FURTHER DOWN IN RED HIGHLIGHT...ABSOLUTE TRUTH OF "FRAUD ON THE COURT" ...UPHELD BY THE APPELLATE COURT(S)....NOW THEY SAY THEY HAVE IMMUNITY....JUST BECAUSE THEY ARE GOVERNMENT OFFICIALS !?  





THIS IS THE MOTION THAT THE DEFENDANTS ARE TRYING SOOOO VERY HARD TO KEEP FROM BEING HEARD BY THE COURT
 “MOTION  TO  COMPEL  DISCOVERY  UNDER   RULE 16”
BECAUSE….IT TELLS TO MUCH ABOUT THEIR ILLEGAL COVER-UP





Please read the link below, I eventually found out that the cop that perjured himself in my case was recently investigated by Texas Rangers and discharged dishonorably from Frisco PD for sexual misconduct with a rape victim from a case he worked. She later was murdered. 
I believe I barely escaped with my life when a bogus 911 caller had the cops come "check on me" 
 Cops failed to announce themselves or park their car or have their lights on so I could see them. I called out to the expected burglar and fired a warning shot. 
Assuming burglar was gone, I went to bed.
 Hours later, I was arrested, then I was robbed by the suspected burglar with the help of police. 
The next day, once they realized they made a BIG mistake-- They began TAMPERED with the evidence. 
Perhaps the saddest part was the lead detective Debra Stansell would, just before my trial, die a suspicious death (that officially have thus far ruled suicide). 
Many of her family members still do not buy into the "official report" saying her soon to be ex husband cop was never swabbed for gunshot residue. 
My Biggest problem was perhaps that I had collusive attorneys, that refused to raise the defense strategy they had agreed to pretrial(and was documented in the court record) 
They did not demand much evidence which was withheld from me, failed to investigate properly my suspicions of tampering and accepted a clearly biased/fraudulent report (and would lied about that in Affidavits when answering the Judge order for affidavits).
I didn't have multiple independent experts previous to trial that I now have. Which provided proof of MUCH tampering! 
We now have even had two experts confirm that the erased part of the lapel mic audio. 
Which proved I acted in accordance with Texas's Castle Law, which has since PROVEN.
Much has been retrieved from the Police Car Audio which was approximately 100 feet away.
AND NOW we hear that the main cop who testified against me is now BANNED from testimony and that his sexual misconduct may jeopardize trials...which should automatically reverse my charges.
BUT NOT WHEN BAD COPS NEED A GOOD COVER UP
Read about it here.




Motion to SET ASIDE VOID AND DEFAULT JUDGEMENT






Here is the link to the two forged documents (the forensic document examiners report is below).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0A0RQkG9cOEa3czUlg4YTE5VDQ/view?usp=sharing






Wednesday, June 14, 2017

DET. DEBRA STANSELL'S SIGNITURE IS A FRAUD....
IT WAS EASY FOR FRISCO P.D.TO USE HER AS THE PATSY......
DEAD PEOPLE CAN'T TESTIFY IN COUR

This is a document that I had never seen in my Collin County case, which we have discussed often.  That led me to determine that something was not quite right regarding State's exhibit 7.   When I pointed this out to my friend, she started looking through the other signatures and found another that was suspicious in State's exhibit 6.

Here is the link to the two forged documents (the forensic document examiners report is below).

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0A0RQkG9cOEa3czUlg4YTE5VDQ/view?usp=sharing

These are the reasons we had a problem with them:

1)  in the first paragraph "undersigned authority" is spelled wrong, meaning an automated boilerplate system that I would expect them to use in the police department was not used.
2) It was dated nearly a year after I was arrested, and we are to assume they have whole new revelations about what happened that they now need to elaborate on?
3) It's the only place we can find that she used her middle initial.
4) It does not appear on the discovery disk.
5) By prosecution then using the same document a few pages later with underlines, we believe it is this document that was weighed most heavily by jury.
6) Prosecution did not hand this document to me before they got it entered into Court Record.  I had never seen this document until a couple of months ago.
7) The story is too embellished. But by this time, a year later at least, they knew they had issues, because I wouldn't plea to anything since I knew there was a big blank spot in the lapel mic.    I also knew that the phone call to my daughter was nowhere on any of the tapes. They needed a slam dunk because they knew I would end up suing them for allowing my son in the house after I had requested they not do so and he took off with everything he could carry right past the cops.   My son was in fact arrested the next day for stealing my identity.

In fact, our expert confirms both signatures are a forgery!




Key pages from Forensic Document Examiner



Forensic Document Expert's entire report
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0A0RQkG9cOEZGdqUmNEaHZ2Wlk/view?usp=sharing

History of Experts Cases
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0A0RQkG9cOEeXZXWlE1Wjdtd3c/view?usp=sharing

Forensic Document Examiner's Resume
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B0A0RQkG9cOEMjdqSjZrRUZrYnM/view?usp=sharing

 Collin County Corruption, Collin County District Attorney Used and Endorsed Tampered Evidence at Trial, Void Default Judgement,