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 COURT” which
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. Commissioner, No. 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
No comments:
Post a Comment