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.