Sunday, March 25, 2018

THERE COMES A TIME WHEN YOUR EFFORTS TO OBTAIN JUSTICE REQUIRE  DIVINE INTERVENTION !

I HAVE NO DOUBT THAT TIME HAS ARRIVED AND THAT THE GOOD LORD SHALL DO JUST THAT NOW ! 

HE OFTEN USES PEOPLE TO ACCOMPLISH HIS WILL, AND THERE ARE TIMES WHEN HE USES A TRULY SUPERNATURAL EVENT, AS IT IS WRITTEN THAT HE "WORKS IN MYSTERIOUS WAYS"

I SHALL AWAIT HIS ACTIONS, AND PROCEED WITH DOING MY PART AT THE SAME TIME. 

MOST RECENTLY A NOTICE WAS GIVEN TO JUDGE HAWTHORN OF DALLAS COUNTY, THAT I SHALL PURSUE A REMEDY IN FEDERAL COURT THAT WILL INDEED INCLUDE OTHERS THAT ARE INVOLVED, THAT I HAVE NOT BEFORE REVEALED.

PERHAPS A FEDERAL COURT WILL SEE THE EVIDENCE ALREADY SUBMITTED AND  WILL BECOME THE INSTRUMENT OF THE LORD, BEFORE I OPEN YET ANOTHER CAN OF WORMS ON THE CORRUPT OFFICIALS INVOLVED. 

IF THAT OCCURS I SHALL ACCEPT WHAT THE LORD TELLS ME TO DO THEN

BUT REST ASSURED THIS "STORY" IS NOT OVER !..STAY TUNED, AND MAY THE LORD BE GLORIFIED!

Monday, February 19, 2018


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.

Monday, February 5, 2018

THE LINK GIVES YOU THE WHOLE STORY ABOUT HOW THE FRISCO P.D.REALLY DID FRAME ME ...THE MOTION THAT I POSTED IS MY LAST MOTION THAT EXPLAINS WHY THE JUDGE OPENED "PANDORA'S BOX"......THE LINK HAS ALL THE EVIDENCE THAT IS RELEVANT IN EXHIBITS......CHECK OUT JUST HOW CORRUPT FRISCO .P.D. REALLY IS 


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 ordersKornblum 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 lawRe. 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.