NOTE
TO READERS: If you believe in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th Amendments or you generally mistrust the government- you
need to read this case.
BELIEVE US WHEN WE SAY IT IS WORTH THE READ!
The trials and tribulations of Paul Clarence Bailey.
This began with a bogus 911 "welfare" call, multiple errors by Dispatcher and Police at the scene, hyperactive "testosterone vigilantes" amped up to kill a citizen who after receiving multiple threats in days and hours prior from his son, calls out a warning to his son and fires a warning shot (all in accordance with Texas Castle Law). It also details a police-assisted theft of a citizen, evidence tampering (to erase Mr. Bailey's warning to his son), perjury on the stand, incompetent attorneys who agreed in court to utilize Mr. Bailey's defense strategy, then refused to execute, and details of Mr. Bailey's continued persecution by the "judicial country club of corruption" in Collin County Texas. The media continued the vast lies told by the Frisco Police Department to cover up their mistakes and incompetence. The lead Detective who was known to be straight as an arrow, death (prior to trial) was declared a "suicide", but insiders say no swipes were taken to test for gun residue.
SHORT
SUMMARY:
This case involves the long ordeal of Paul Bailey, a Frisco Texas
man, after having received numerous threats in the days preceding
believing his own son was there to act on his threats. Unbeknownst
to him, his son had called 911 to tell them his father was
“suicidal”. Frisco Police Dispatcher Delanna Copeland failed
to detect that his stated location and actual location according to
her screen did not agree- she also failed to question the
authenticity of other statements made by the bogus 911 caller.
Frisco Police Officer Scott Greer, also ignored numerous police
protocols designed to protect officers and citizens by 1) failing to
park in front of home so it could be seen at approximately 11 pm, 2)
failING to have lights on (again so it could be seen), 3) failed to
wait for backup, 4) failed to ANNOUNCE himself, 5) failing to
determine after looking through the window and noting Mr. Bailey was
watching TV and drinking a beer, that he didn't appear distressed or
note any other exigent circumstances, and 6) did not have
authorization or a warrant to enter Mr. Bailey's property.
After
Mr. Bailey yells out to his son “Get out of here Rick!” he fires
a warning shot (this is completely legal under Texas Castle Law) and
goes to bed.
Hours
later, he is awoken to the sound of breaking glass, a hostage
negotiator telling him he's about to lose his life, and hundreds of
police and swat team members outside!
It's
interesting to note that Mr. Bailey believes the only thing that
saved him was his neighbor was a police scanner “nut” and called
the media, who promptly regurgitated Frisco Police Department's
version of the story (which had many holes as we will show you very
soon)!
Mr.
Bailey is arrested, Police invite son into home where Son promptly
steals items so he can assume father's identity.
Trial
is a total joke, attorney's for Mr. Bailey would be considered
incompetent (and that's on a GOOD Day!).
Mr.
Bailey's trusted friend and accountant is given a box of documents
and evidence and discovers that anomalies are on the recordings. She
promptly knows something is amiss and begins investigating.
Multiple
experts confirm evidence tampering AFTER TRIAL!
A
running synopsis of Paul's legal issues are below. Please take
note of small details, we believe that these tactics are used daily
against thousands of people all across our country. In addition, we
believe that his case will eventually be used in Law Schools around
the country as an example of egregious public corruption.
A
photo diagram of the issues and a discussion of the issues if the
audio sound is synced:
The
Grounds: The link to the Executive Summary of Why Paul Bailey
should have his conviction overturned.
A
link to the Writ of Habeas filed by Paul Clarence Bailey is here-
this shows the detailed documents and affidavits showing that
multiple errors were made by Frisco Police Department and evidence
was tampered with.
NOW
FOR THE DETAILS OF PAUL'S RELENTLESS PERSECUTION:
Mr.
Bailey's drug-addicted son wanted Dad out of the house so he could
rob him (he had already set up a car deal in Oklahoma and just
needed a few documents and cash to finalize it). Dad had just
thrown him out of the house a day or so prior. Here's a link
to his rap sheet.
His
son made a bogus 911 call, asking them to check on his “suicidal
dad” (that was totally made up!)
The
911 operator failed to detect inconsistencies in the caller's story.
That should have been the first hint to the operator that the call
might be bogus and might justify further inquiry to prevent wasting
taxpayer dollars. He lied about his location to the 911 operator who
should have easily noticed that it
did not jive with his actual location. At this point, that should
have been a “red flag” that other details about this call should
also be questioned.
Once
Police were dispatched, Officer Greer violated Proper Police
Protocols and went to the door without backup.
Officer
Greer had been watching Mr. Bailey through the window and stated in
his official report that he was “watching TV and drinking a beer”.
That should have been the SECOND
RED FLAG that
the 911 call was bogus and Mr. Bailey was not suicidal!
Officer
Greer, violated protocols that would have protected everyone
involved. Specifically he did not
A.)
wait for backup,
B)
park his car in front of the house so it could be seen,
C)
have his vehicle lights on, nor did he
D)
identify himself when banging on the door with the butt of his
flashlight.
Here
are links to short excerpts.
By
not following proper procedures, the Police had allowed themselves
and an innocent citizen to be set up by the son who had been
threatening his father for nearly a week (as attested to by Jodie
Mow in her affidavit) and had also stolen money and property from
him that week. Consequently, Mr. Bailey fully expected to be robbed
again and perhaps killed because of his son's threats (who also had
terribly long rap sheet).. In
actuality, the banging on his door in the middle of the night was a
policeman that contributed to the confusion by not following
protocols.
Unbeknownst
to Mr. Bailey, the person who banged on his door was not his son,
but a Policeman. This “dark comedy of errors and omissions”
resulted in Mr. Bailey yelling “Get out of Here Rick!”, and
firing a warning shot. He then went to bed, thinking his son was now
gone and he had nothing to worry about. A few hours later, he awoke
to the sound of something thrown through his window and a “hostage
negotiator” telling him he would be killed if he didn't come
outside. (These tapes were not provided to Mr. Bailey in violation
of the Attorney General's instructions to Frisco PD).
Having
no idea what the problem was, he initially refused to come out. That
was all the “testosterone
vigilantes” needed
to get more amped up!
Ultimately,
Mr. Bailey came out, but only after insisting that the Police not
let his son in the house.
They agreed, but after Mr. Bailey is arrested — the police
then INVITE the
son into the house (while police officers were still in Mr. Bailey's
home) who promptly proceeded to take what he needed including credit
cards, wallet, and other items that were “hockable” to
complete his planned purchase of a vehicle using his fathers stolen
identity (see affidavit of neighbor who saw him leaving with
property). In
reality, the POLICE helped the son commit the exact crime the father
was worried about! Last I heard, his son was still in prison for
this very crime, but he was not transported to be a witness for his
father, even though he was willing to do so and since being in
prison, he had been clean and sober for awhile and was willing to
try to make restitution for what he had set in motion.
Once
arrested, Mr. Bailey is held and interrogated without counsel for
hours under the Patriot Act, even after requesting counsel numerous
times as reflected in the jailer's log. At
trial, Officer Sartain claimed there was no such log. During the
interrogation, however, Policewoman Stansell asked “Mr Bailey, who
did you think was at your door? Did you think it was your son?”.
This
is not great quality but here's links:
The
next day his friend, Jodie Mow speaks to the Policewoman in charge,
Deborah Stansell, about Mr. Bailey's missing wallet, who seems
alarmed and surprised that anything has gone missing (listen to
audio).
Once
released he fired up his blog after he was charged with assault with
a deadly weapon because he felt his story was not being told. It
irritated the powers that be and then his world REALLY BEGAN TO
UNRAVEL. Remember one thing: once you are accused of shooting at
someone (even though it was a warning shot for who he thought was
his son), his financing dried up, he lost hope of getting a job, and
then the mortgage modification for which he had applied (and they
had cashed his checks, securing the modification) got mysteriously
pulled (and the bank started returning his uncashed checks to him
claiming it was he who was causing the problem) and they have
attempted foreclosure numerous times.
Now
to make matters worse, what if I told you that Mr. Bailey's account
could not be corroborated by Policewoman Stansell, because her
question is not in the evidence presented to the court and she
cannot do it herself because she has passed away, supposedly to
“suicide” (we don't believe it) just a couple of weeks prior to
Mr. Bailey's court date?
http://www.turrentinejacksonmorrow.com/component/tjmremembrancenter/debra-stansell-47154
In
Texas, the “Castle Law” doctrine gives Mr. Bailey every right to
defend his home, his property, and himself. I have to question what
is going on in Collin County when his court appointed “pretender”
wouldn't raise this issue nor did he utilize it even after assuring
Mr. Bailey in attorney-client conversations and agreed in the Court
Transcripts that he “was taking this thing over” after Mr.
Bailey insisted on the opportunity to speak with him to gain final
assurance that his defense would be used during the trial.
Mr
Bailey has written an editorial which mentions Castle Law at the link
below.
Mr
Bailey's primary court-appointed “attorney” should have recused
himself from the case because he told Mr. Bailey that he was
good-friends with Officer Stansell's husband and that he commented
that (his words NOT MINE) “she was a bit**”
In
addition, both court-appointed attorneys (Greg Gibbs and Mark
Ledbetter):
failed
to mount any sort of investigation,
failed
to question “experts”,
failed
to detect anomalies in evidence (Exhibit 1-11)
failed
to analyze or sync recordings (Exhibit 1)
failed
to point out to the jury that Officer Greer's own words on the audio
tape impeached his testimony on the stand when he states “But I
don't think he could see me though” and “Tell Dispatch to call
the RP [reporting party] that it's the F*cking Police!”.
failed
to ask Greer if he never turned his microphone off, why was a beep
heard prior to the 4 second blank spot (Exhibit 14 of Habeas)
failed
to locate the 5 minute blanked out spot on the Claussen Video,
(exhibit 4 in Habeas)
failed
to demand evidence not provided by Frisco PD or Prosecutors (exhibit
7 in Habeas)
failed
to enter into evidence the police report of items stolen from
residence after Mr. Bailey was arrested for protecting his home
and property (Texas Castle Law) and failed to highlight that
Police allowed Mr. Bailey's son to enter home (despite his threats
over the prior several days to his father) and rob his father
(resulting in a Police Assisted Theft) and failed to enter into
evidence the fact that son was arrested the next day for stealing
his father's identity. (Exhibit 8,9,15, 16)
failed
to be prepared or know what evidence was withheld (Brady evidence
Exhibit 7 & 15)
Failed
to use Mr. Bailey's Strategy for his own defense even though Gibbs
(the attorney) agreed to it on the court record (Exhibit 12)
(formulated and prepared by Attorney James Whalen) (Exhibits 12 &
17) Note: many emails document Mr. Bailey telling his
court-appointed pretenders what actually happened and how he was
abused by Frisco Police Department and how he was overcharged by
Prosecutors.
In
addition, the original indictment was altered retroactively. If
your case was strong enough, would you need to resort to amending an
indictment, cutting and pasting and altering a previously filed
record? What kind of Assistant DA (John Schomburger) would
expose himself and everyone who worked on the case by doing such a
thing? In
the following indictment, take note of the fonts used in the middle
of the page, then compare it to the font used in the form portion,
notice the sloppy cut and paste, and also make note of the
date the order was "filed" on Sept 1, 2009. Now examine
the next two documents and finally compare the body of the
indictment to Attachment A. Then ask yourself, why would something
that is identical, need to be amended retroactively?
18)
Now as far as audio/video “evidence” is concerned. We noticed
blank spots in the audio portion so we got curious especially when we
realized that Mr. Bailey's shout to his son, was not on the tape! Two
independent computer people were hired to analyze "certified"
police audio and video from a municipality in North Texas and they
both have told me in no uncertain terms that some of the audio has
been "erased". This is what one of them sent me in an email
I
took the Frisco-1.MP4 file
that you uploaded to YouTube this
morning and stripped out just the audio.
Then
I opened my audio editor that shows me the audio in
“waveform” format.
Even if you don’t know what that means you have probably watched
enough CSI to figure it out.
Anyway,
I took the two screen shots you see below of what this file looks
like. The first one is of the entire file. The second one
is ZOOMED in
on the 1:20 minute
mark (see the bottom of the screen shot). Any first grade
audio student can tell that the audio was erased. Notice that
it is a FLAT
LINE.
There is no background noise as in the rest of the file. Even
when I increase the audio (which would also increase the baseline
noise) that section does not increase. The ONLY way
you can get this result is by erasure. Even if they turned the
microphone on and off you would see a spike when that happened.
Here's
a link to the photos
As a
result of having the first section of video authenticated by a local
person. I decided it might be time to have all several hours of
video tested for tampering. Below is an image of the first
test by the second authenticator. His job was to review
everything provided and determine if anything had been erased. It
seems my gut feel that if one section was tampered with, another
section might be as well, was sound. The second person sent me these
comments, (bear in mind he is in another country and english is not
his first language, I wanted to be positive that he was looking at
the information, not concentrating on the verbiage used in the audio)
There
are several thousand silenced bits in both tracks, the timing and
duration of these correspond roughly to each other on "lapel1"
and "car1" files. My findings suggest that these are all
silenced intentionally, the purpose is to mask the erasure of the
actual incriminating sections of audio and make it look like a
machine malfunction/technical problem. These are the items that I
will conclude my report with:
A) The huge number of silent
bits, the technical reason for my opinion
that they were erased on
purpose.
B) The 4 to 5 lengthy sections of silenced audio with
start/end timestamps.
C) Around 1:20 minute mark, there is a
gunshot sound that can be heard
on one of the tracks but not on
the other.
22. Now,
switching gears again, I finally returned to the first authenticator
(that I hired) and let him validate what the second evaluator found
regarding the 5 minute blanked out spot. He confirmed it and gave me
an affidavit of findings and this photo of his results.
He
was able to do so and here is a link to the post
The timestamps
referenced are
shown in the videos below
the large video that
is playing at the time.
1)
Be sure and note when you watch the first one that you notice
that the only light you see is the constant light of a street light.
There are no flashing lights to indicate a police car was out
front.
2)
Note that when he bangs on the door with his flashlight, that
he does NOT announce himself as required by standard police
protocols.
3)
Why can you hear the gunshot on the dash cam and NOT the lapel mic?
Below
are the words typed out and the times on the lapel mic:
23:28:50-53
(notice the blanked out spot here) Now ask yourself, why would
someone delete that 3 second spot in evidence? Wonder who had access
to the tape to blank that out? Mr. Bailey told me that
he said "Get out of here Rick!" before he fired a
warning shot, because his son had repeatedly tried to steal from him
for several days prior.
Right
afterwards you hear Greer: "Shots fired, shots fired".
23:29:31
Greer: "he pointed that f*cker at me! He
pointed that sh*t at me.
Someone
else: "He did?"
Greer:
"Yeah. I don't think he could see me though."
23:30:48
Greer: "Have Dispatch call the "RP"
to call him and let him know it's the f*cken Police!"
Had
I been a Jurer it would have been OVER after hearing this.
Not
only did his “Attorney” not emphasize the two statements of Greer
(which by his own admission at the time) that prove that Mr. Bailey
did not commit the crime. Specifically,
there
is no way that Mr. Bailey had “intent” to harm anyone, if he
couldn't see them,
that
Castle Law gives him the right to protect himself and his property
(especially considering the circumstances, and
he
also failed to point out that Greer committed perjury on the stand.
How?
By not syncing the
two audio files from the “Certified Video” and point out that
after the 4 second blank spot on Greer's lapel mic, at 23:28:53 the
audio comes back on but no gunshot is heard. In the car video (over
120 feet away), the gunshot is heard at 23:28:54. If both videos are
time synced the gun shot should be heard on the lapel mic. IT
IS NOT HEARD BECAUSE GREER WAS NOWHERE CLOSE TO THE DOOR (meaning he
perjured himself) or
it would have been recorded. The part that was tampered with and
removed from the audio, was Mr Bailey's warning to his son, Rick,
because it proved that he acted in accordance with Castle Law in
Texas.
Now
it is interesting to note that only recently did we discover that I
was still in possession of texts forwarded for me around 2 years ago
from Mr. Bailey that the Original Court Appointed “Authenticator”
had sent via email to Mr. Bailey's Court Appointed Attorney at the
time (Raphael DeLagarza) which were then sent to Mr. Bailey who then
forwarded them on to me. I had no idea they were important until
recently, but once I knew that they were important, I promptly
snapped screenshots and uploaded them to the web for posterity. Take
a look and see how their initial opinion of tampered evidence
abruptly changed. For what reason, I don't know, but I do know that
additional experts disagree with
his final “opinion” that nothing was wrong with the tapes.
Now at this juncture, we contacted other experts:
One is an audio visual expert from California who made it clear
(after talking to the Software Company that created the software used
by the Frisco PD) that a beep prior to a blank spot in a tape is the
sign that a police officer has “turned his lapel microphone off”.
(See Habeas Exhibit 14)
However, in the court transcripts (and this is the only thing that
the attorney did that was right, and it was probably just a fluke!)-
Officer Greer stated that he never turns his off.
What this tells us is that whoever tampered with the audio and erased
Mr. Bailey's warning to his son (which proved he acted in accordance
with Texas' Castle Law), knew the idiosyncrasies of the system used
by the Frisco Police Department, but had no idea that future
testimony would reveal that the officer's routine never included
“turning his microphone off'.
This is shown in Exhibit 14 at this link:
A Former Candidate for US Congress from
Pennsylvania and Whistleblower Everett Stern (CEO of Tactical Rabbit)
also reviewed evidence and stated that the Evidence was criminally
altered. Here's a little background on Mr Stern
The letter from Mr. Stern is found here:
Finally, we located a sound engineer from
Germany that was able to locate Mr. Bailey's warning on the CAR
Audio---this was the spot that was “criminally altered” to quote
Mr. Everett Stern. And this was not something we had ever expected
anyone to be able to find.
We once again, had this information
corroborated by a sound engineer in Pennsylvania.
21.
These are just some of the issues that really disturb me about this
specific case:
a)
“Defense” wouldn't show Mr Bailey's recreated video which could
have shown the jury somecontext. They also might have seen that he
lives in a beautiful home and just might not be seen as much of a
threat.
b) Why
was the question that Officer Stansell asked Mr Bailey not shown in
any notes or tapes? She asked him "Mr Bailey, who did you think
was at the door? Did you believe it was your son?" Were
they, by this time, in so deep that they had to make the evidence
allowed in court, fit the story by police who fell for a setup by a
drug addict who wanted his father out of his way so he could rob
him?
c)
Why is the fact that Rick is now in prison for the very crime Mr
Bailey sought to prevent, not in evidence?
d)
Why was Rick allowed to mill around and take the items that he
needed to commit those crimes (wallet etc), while the police were
still at Mr Bailey's house (after his arrest) and why was the jury
not notified of it?
e)
Why would “Defense” Attorney Gibbs not recuse himself since
there was an obvious conflict of interest since he claimed he was
Stansell's husband's “good friend” and that (his words) she was
a real bit**? What about the lack of any sort
of defense? What about him lying to the court and to his client that
he would present Mr. Bailey's defense?
f)
Why was a nearly 60 year old man with obvious health problems (two
subsequent heart attacks after the arrest ordeal) held under the
Patriot Act without counsel for several hours?
g)
Why would Mr. Bailey's son Rick not be allowed to testify as to what
happened that evening?
h)
Since Castle law gives Mr Bailey the right to protect his property
(remember police clearly did not follow protocol meaning there was
no way Mr. Bailey could know it was police banging on his door
instead of his son and rustling through his bushes in the middle of
the night), “Defense” Attorney Gibbs had to make sure no defense
occurred for Mr Bailey. I
can come to no other conclusion than, this man's collusion,
complacency, incompetence, fear of the Collin County “system” or
laziness put Mr Bailey in jail.
i)Why did the Court Appointed
Authenticator's initial reports vary so dramatically from the final
report and why was there no spectral analysis done?
To
tell you his story gets even worse, would be an understatement.
22.
Mr Bailey's problems GOT MUCH WORSE after he fired up his blog
(at www.friscopaul.blogspot.com)
telling his side of the story in Collin County. Once he does this, lo
and behold, he is arrested for an issue previously declared a “civil
matter” by a Detective in Dallas and is subsequently discharged in
bankruptcy. Bear in mind, this matter was for vehicles purchased by
people supposedly living in Africa, who, instead of accepting
shipment for vehicles immediately (as is the norm) they
went months without
answering phone calls or emails. As attested by affidavit of the
Business Manager and Bookkeeper at the time.
Another
email that should have been used is from Detective Cox, himself. View
the email between him and Mr. Bailey's bankruptcy attorney stating it
was a civil matter. In
addition, the letter from the plaintiff's attorney advising his
clients that he was withdrawing from representing them due to
non-cooperation and that once Mr. Bailey files bankruptcy, that he
could not help them, further points, once again, to a civil matter I
have called Detective Cox numerous times since November 2012, but he
does not return my calls. I wanted to inform him that when Mr. Bailey
wanted to subpeona him to testify the DA and his court appointed
attorney and investigator told him he had long since retired).
Unbeknownst to them, I had called his voice mail in November 2012 and
the message on his voicemail at that time indicated that he was on
vacation. So I immediately knew something was amiss when Mr. Bailey
told me that they said Det Cox was unavailable for subpeona.
In
the Dallas case, the issue of cars being sold in preparation for
liquidation since the buyers had not arranged for receipt of cars
left for months nor had they responded to emails or phone calls
telling them they should do so (Mr. Bailey was not sure they were
even alive as they were from Angola) was discharged in bankruptcy, so
apparently the court did not have jurisdiction, but that didn't keep
them from allowing a faulty indictment from being amended (despite a
quash motion being filed), then right before the jury deliberated,
prosecutors advised jury that they were to ignore first indictment as
it was being “thrown out” (thereby acquitting him of it), and
telling jury to deliberate on the second indictment (based on same
faulty evidence)- thereby effectively committing double jeopardy in
same trial!
23.
Just recently, the Dallas Judge Teresa Hawthorne sent him a letter
titled “Order Designating Issues” that said Attorney April E
Smith is to be a fact-finder for the court after
Mr. Bailey filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and a Rule to Show Cause
requesting transcripts and evidence for the trial) and
it specifically says that she is NOT to
represent Mr. Bailey. This document IS NOT on the DOCKET. Upon
closer inspection, we also note that the Judge's Order Designating
Issues, has a stamp on the back that was “witnessed” the day
PRIOR to the Judge ordering such on the 26th.
Interestingly,
the Docket shows ANOTHER order signed within one day of the previous
“Order Designating Issues”, appointing the
same attorney to
be his court appointed attorney. (Mr.
Bailey was never sent a copy of this order, so unless someone pulled
up the docket, he would not even know about it). Because the same
attorney was assigned to two different roles, this amounts to a
“Court Ordered Conflict of Interest”.
April
E Smith knows about this conflict of interest since she has made no
contact with Mr. Bailey even after he wrote her a letter making her
aware that he knew about her appointment and asking for her to
contact him. However,
he believes this is just another attempt to stall justice and keep
him incarcerated.
Documents
and discussion are here
Furthermore,
while attempting to obtain court records for him, now that he's
indigent, Judge Hawthorne was terribly abusive when a friend went to
the courthouse (at the request of his previous court-appointed
attorney to meet him there and he'd help her get the transcripts Mr.
Bailey needed since he claimed he had nothing in his files on Mr.
Bailey's case) where Judge Hawthorne accused this individual of
"practicing law without a license". This
was apparently for the "crime" of attempting to obtain
court transcripts so that Mr. Bailey could have the case either
appealed or overturned. Records that we are now told are supposed
to be automatically provided to him as a pro se defendant. Judge
Teresa Hawthorne has
denied Mr. Bailey the transcripts for his case, even though she knows
full well that he is indigent as her subsequent orders confirm by
appointing him another court-appointed attorney (albeit with a
conflict of interest as covered above). What is in those transcripts
that she doesn't want him to know? We think we know, he appeared
before the Judge and advised her that he needed to attend a
previously scheduled Hearing for New Trial in Collin County. She said
“Mr. Bailey, you're going nowhere!”.
Just
last week, Mr. Bailey filed a Writ of Mandamas which compels the
Judge to rule on the Writ of Habeas and the Rule to Show Cause (ie:
cough up the legally guaranteed transcripts that he is due) that he
filed motions for months ago. Now today, he receives a letter dated
December 2nd,
with documents that demand his response within 20 days or so, but
which are backdated! (ONCE AGAIN, THESE DOCUMENTS ARE NOT ON THE
DOCKET). See the latest photo as of today, the Miscellaneous
Correspondance listed at the top is the Writ of Mandamas just filed.
Note that nothing was placed on the docket between June 25 and
November 26. As I've told him, this is the gang that can't shoot
straight!
As
a result of several documents being removed from the mail from Mr.
Bailey to me to take care of things for him on his behalf, I had him
institute a policy of logging every document enclosed in the
envelope and the date of mailing as well as telling me what he is
sending and when so that I can be on the lookout for the documents.
Texas
Department of Criminal Justice (TDCJ) began destroying envelopes so
he couldn't tell if documents were missing, so this is now what we
recommend. Each document should be detailed on a cover sheet with title of document and number of pages included. In addition, each page should be marked with an unusual color of ink so that documents cannot be pulled and replaced with photo-copied documents.
This
is the text of the letter that Mr. Bailey be requested typed up and
sent to him for his signature. The Texas Information Act is
basically an open records act. However, Frisco has previously denied
a request for similar information, claiming that because he is
incarcerated, they don't have to comply. Now bear in mind, Mr.
Bailey is acting as his own attorney, so this clause that they are
hiding behind should not apply. And it definitely didn't apply when
the Attorney General told them to release all the evidence to Mr.
Bailey and his then, court-appointed attorneys!
All
along the way, Mr. Bailey has experienced multiple civil rights
violations including the following:
1)
withholding and tampering with medications,
withholding
or tampering with communications,
being
sent to the Psych facility as retailiation for filing grievances,
denial
of medical records,
moving
to various facilities,
denial
of deposits to inmate's trust fund,
taking
his legal documents, clothing, blood pressure medication, glasses,
and dental appliances from him (a total of 8 weeks at a single
time).
Denial
of access to law library.
Being
charged for postage to return Jailhouse Lawyers Manual chapters
written by prominent civil rights attorneys when item was never
returned to sender (fraudulent).
Threatened
with retaliation (by getting a “case” which would affect
parole) for not taking a flu shot (when he is already immune
compromised).
Excessive
charges for “medical care deductibles”.
Tampering
with medical records retroactively.
Theft
of several grievance receipts contained in the documents taken for
the 8 week period.
Theft
of documents needed for 2nd level
grievances with TDCJ.
Theft
of legal mail requiring Mr. Bailey's signature requesting
documents/evidence previously withheld from him Frisco Police
Department.
ATTORNEYS GREG GIBBS AND MARK LEDBETTER SABOTAGED CLIENT AND COLLUDED WITH FRISCO POLICE DEPARTMENT WHO TAMPERED WITH EVIDENCE. DID THE COLLIN COUNTY DISTRICT ATTORNEY KNOW ABOUT THE TAMPERED EVIDENCE? READ THE WRIT OF HABEAS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY TO FIND OUT WHY WE BELIEVE THEY WERE ALSO GUILTY OF COLLUSION AND SABOTAGE. ALSO READ MORE ABOUT DETECTIVE DEBRA STANSELL'S SUSPICIOUS "SUICIDE". TDCJ CORRUPTION, PRISON INDUSTRIAL COMPLEX,
