Source: https://ro.scribd.com/document/23304164/Attorney-Haman-William-November-27-2009-About-December-18-2008
Timestamp: 2020-02-17 07:52:51
Document Index: 135835041

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1961', '§ 1346', '§ 201', '§ 1961', '§ 1964', '§\n1961', '§ 1346', '§ 1346', '§ 1346', '§ 1346', '§\n2679', '§ 2401', '§ 1983', '§ 7603', '§ 16', '§ 16']

Attorney Haman William November 27, 2009 About December 18 2008 | Racketeer Influenced And Corrupt Organizations Act | Qualified Immunity
Attorney Haman William November 27, 2009 About December 18 2008
Also Google - "Greg Abbott = Hypocrite" Actor Ben Plaut Public Interest Document and Public Record of how a racketeer is attempting to perpetuate his criminal activity and enterprise under the guise of a foundation in his name to continue his corrupt vision for Texas and to advance the continued racket connected to his partners i.e former DPS trooper Charles Soechting who is harassing Charles O'Dell with a lawsuit when he is the 'stalwart" partner that is responsible for bringing down the O'Quinn Law Firm for the murder of a federal witness, Melinda "Lindy Harrison" Honerkamp (November 4, 1953- August 5, 2005) and that John O'Quinn and the O'Quinn Law Firm continued the RETALIATION and other related state and federal crimes documented in former United States Attorney Ron Woods letter of March 1992 and in a federal lawsuit numbered 4:03-cv-ho-02395 with an intended rule 60 (b) (6) motion percolating, and where the criminal evidence has been delivered to attorney Jerry S. Payne of Piney Point, Texas. Respectfully submitted, Carol Ann Davis , 25311 Sugar Valley Lane, Spring, Texas 77373, (281) 350-2943 ( 713) 560-5940 Texas Double Standard "Ramon Viada" for more information
salvareSalvați Attorney Haman William November 27, 2009 About Dec... pentru mai târziu
Mr. William C. Haman &
Chief Division Counsel
2500 T.C. Jester Blvd.
Re: Sanctions et al.
Subject: Carol Ann Davis v. City of Jersey Village et al 4:03-
CV-02395
Mr. Haman & Mr. Kevin Donnelly:
Plaintiff Davis has no objection if you want to produce the ‘duty agent’ i.e.
Special Agent Rick Veterinarian (fact witness) to disclose information relating to
the disjointed and delusional information relayed to him about (retired)Special
Agent Ron Stern in connection with USC SDTX 4:03-CV-Ho-02395 regarding
complaint number 0-62, and 282-H-Ho-59712, under a Rule 60 (b) (6) when Agent
Rick Veterinarian was trying to cover up for Special Agent Al Tribble not
requesting the “booking documents”, not to mention YOU COVERING IT UP
TOO. The statutory requirements have been clearly satisfied as it relates to the
agreement to present special agent Ron Stern and plaintiff limited inquiry. [See
usca 5 pages 3759 filed 10-30-08] to ensure you have a valid reason for not
granting my request, and “playing games” presently by copy of this letter to Judge
Werlein Jr. that Plaintiff Davis is requesting sanctions i.e. Rule 11 motions and
Plaintiff Davis is requesting the court to impose sanctions against you at
least in the amount for the reasonable attorney’s fees and other expenses incurred
to date including the loss of life, and your participation in re- directing the DOJ
investigation that was also involves former United States attorney Laurence
Finder., Judge Werlein Jr. is going to want to hear from the duty agent Rick who
practices veterinary medicine and law enforcement, and Plaintiff is seeking
unspecified damages from YOU and John M. O’Quinn is that delusional and
disjointed enough for you sir. This will include Special Agent Rick Veterinarians
medical diagnosis of Plaintiff Davis; his basis in medicine, fact and law about
disjointed and delusional information where Plaintiff is correcting by “connecting
the dots” to YOU, and Special Agent Al Tribble and appends the information to
Part I ( correction Number One) of the motion to vacate filed at 274 and 275
pursuant to Rule 60 (b) (6) filed in “Federal Court” and in Harris County Probate
Court No. 2 Judge Mike Woods presiding, armed with a verified request for
Declaratory Relief in a Section 1983, where the United States Department of
Justice, Albert N. Moskowitz on July 19, 2002 authorized a Section 1983 civil
lawsuit, 2002 documented in their letter to Plaintiff Davis that she file a civil
rights lawsuit against the City of Jersey Village et al for constitional deprivations,
and YOU continue to punish Plaintiff Davis due to Judge Sim Lake “FILE A
COMPLAINT ON THE UNITED STATES ATTORNEY” knowing full well
Plaintiff Davis was not as sophisticated in government operations and the
complaint was misdirected and should have been aimed at YOU. Plaintiff Davis
was unaware it was you did not agree with Albert M. Moskowitz, Chief of the
Criminal Section of the United States Department of Justice and know if Plaintiff
Davis discovers “Federal Court” reporter Cher Barron removed that letter from the
“Federal Court” file there is not going to be enough ‘medicine’ to fix the delusion I
have planned for YOU and her in a Federal Court to disjoint both of your freedom
and profits from illegal activity.
Special Agent Rick Veterinarian ‘handing’ Ron Sterns federal information
source clearly not proper and ‘advising’ Plaintiff “Go to the doctor, “for
medication” presumably to medicate her for delusions about O’Quinn and the
FAKE client documented in the “CAPIAS” that it is NOT an illegal dissemination
and an offer of proof of tampering with government data bases not pursuant to the
Texas Government Code , Subchapter F has not been presented, and to seek
‘medicine’ it is detected as a part of YOUR GAME. The medicine is the TML
policy limits and Declaratory Relief granted, and gets you FIRED, sir. The ‘duty
agent i.e. Rick Veterinarian has OBJECTED November 23, 2009 absent a medical
or a law license to Judge Werlein’s continued “Federal Court” jurisdiction,
claiming Plaintiff Davis is delusional ‘fanciful’, and “out of an abundance of
caution” the “Federal Court” is requested to set a hearing, and immediately hear
the EMERGENCY, OF THE DUTY AGENT and the PERIL of Plaintiff Davis
request for ‘medicine’ i.e. sanctions against you, Mr. William C. Haman to
explore your professional violations detected even if you occupy Plaintiff is
needing ‘medicine’ and not her legal right to payment for damages.
Plaintiff Davis made claims against the United States, through the Order of
Judge Sim Lake for the actions of the FBI, and other agents, connected to the
sentencing of Texas DPS Trooper Defendant Richard Rodriguez, for tampering
with governmental data base computers but, Plaintiff Davis still not
understanding the O’Quinn Law Firm ‘s role in ‘representing’ a FAKE client
under the Federal Torts Claim Act (“FTCA”) for abuse of process, malicious
prosecution, concealing the physical assaults of February 18, 2001, and Special
Agent Al Tribble not requesting the “booking documents”, intentional infliction
of emotional distress, false imprisonment, and invasion of privacy is DETECTED
as a part of the cover up.
The ‘duty agent’ so much as said, Plaintiff Davis filed a “Bivens” 1 claims
against FBI agents for due process and Fifth Amendment violations for alleged
violations of the federal Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act (“RICO”), 18
U.S.C. § 1961-1968, by The O’Quinn Law Firm, and various employees of these
government operations i.e. State of Texas et al, court reporters, videographers and
interference with economic advantage and benefit, intentional infliction of
emotional distress, and fraud and deceit claims against all defendants connected to
the Department of Justice Special Agent Ron Stern contract that bears Plaintiff
Davis name to collect criminal evidence armed with the July 19, 2002 . While at
the time, Plaintiff was unaware that Judge Sim Lake was talking about you, Mr.
William C. Haman.
The FTCA applies state law to determine the government’s liability for torts
within the FTCA waiver of immunity. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1346(b), 2674. Under
Texas law, there are seven [7] elements for a malicious prosecution claim: (1)
commencement of a criminal prosecution against the plaintiff; (2) causation
(initiation or procurement) of the action by the defendant; (3) termination of the
prosecution in the plaintiff’s favor; (4) the plaintiff’s innocence; (5) the absence of
probable cause for the proceedings; (6) malice in filing the charge; and (7) damage
to the plaintiff. See Richey v. Brookshire Grocery Co., 952 S.W.2d 515, 517 (Tex.
1997). Special Agent Al Tribble did not ask for the “booking documents “as
part of the setup to protect his friend former head of the Houston FBI Office Don
Clark (emphasis added). Attorney John M. O’Quinn hired Don Clark to protect
John O’Quinn and his empire built on corrupt activities with public officials;
racketeering the purpose of Ron Stern’s probe and the contract with Plaintiff Davis
. Your argument; Plaintiff Davis cannot meet the fifth criterion, absence of
probable cause, and blame Plaintiff for the absence of indictments related to the
targets for bribing a public official in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 201(b)(1)(A)& (C),
which provides: (b) Whoever (1) directly or indirectly, corruptly gives . . .
anything of value to any public official . . . with intent (A) to influence any
official act; or (B) to induce such public official . . . to commit or aid in
committing, or collude in, or allow, any fraud, or make opportunity for the
commission of any fraud, on the United States; shall be [subject to criminal
liability] is not going to be received very well by Judge Werlein. You are aware
Judge Werlein is a stickler about the law; he expects to see a commitment to public
service. Protecting John M. O’Quinn and the FAKE client is not the commitment
that is authorized by the “Federal Court” where YOU joined in the “game”;
“Everyone agrees to lie” to the “Federal Court “and plaintiff Davis.
Probable cause is defined as “the existence of such facts and circumstances
as would excite belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the
knowledge of the prosecutor [complainant], that the person charged was guilty of
the crime for which he was prosecuted.” Richey, 952 S.W.2d at 517 (citation
omitted) (editing original). If the facts necessary to instigate a criminal prosecution
are in dispute, the issue of probable cause is a mixed question of law and fact to be
resolved by Judge Werlein Jr. Where the facts underlying the decision to
prosecute are not disputed, however, then the question of probable cause is a
question of law decided by the court. See Richey, 952 S.W.2d at 518. It is
undisputed that Al Tribble did not collect the “booking documents” and has
continued to PROFIT as a Special Agent for the FBI, and Al Tribble has defended
the employment of Don Clark when Clark was hired by John M. O’Quinn during a
federal investigation about public corruption i.e. Texas Attorney General Dan
Morales remember him? FBI Agent Robert Hightower remember him? The only
dispute concerns Tribble’s s mens rea – what Al Tribble knew or intended. “[T]he
complainant’s failure to make a further investigation into the suspect’s state of
mind does not constitute lack of probable cause if all objective elements of a crime
reasonably appear to have been completed, and the ‘duty agent’ wants Plaintiff
Davis medicated for delusion and disjointed thoughts. Even though the Plaintiff
Davis evidence might have been weak (delusional and or disjointed) and the
prospects of obtaining a conviction may not have been good, before receiving the
medical diagnosis of the Special Agent Veterinarian as a matter of law, the Davis
Plaintiff “ federal information source “ under Special Agent Ron Stern has
proffered proof of probable cause; and thus Plaintiff Davis has not failed to state
a claim for the denial of protection of her civil rights, when Al Tribble did not
collect the “booking documents” from Sgt. Robert “Body Armor” LaRouax
connected to investigation 282-A-HO-59712 where Plaintiff hand wrote about
John M. O’Quinn and his vast government conspiracy on February 18, 2001 and
when Al Tribble ‘investigates’ Don Clark gets a new job , and Plaintiff says
come on back Don it’s over because YOU know everything of John M. O’Quinn ‘s
is mine because if you do not Plaintiff Davis is going to prosecute you too Mr. Don
Clark; and by copy Don Clark is advised. (See Houston Chronicle Archive and the
United States Attorney Ronald G. Woods, and his professional opinion that Clark
working for O’Quinn was “problematic” and for $ 150.00., Plaintiff Davis can turn
“hearsay” in to testimony evidence against the O’Quinn, his billion dollar empire
where Plaintiff Davis says its mine (and the Harris County Rico Victims) – Judge
Werlein Jr. rules, while you too act “impervious to the truth”. 2. Abuse of
Process Under Texas law, there are three elements for an abuse of process claim:
“(1) that Al Tribble made an illegal, improper or perverted use of the process, a use
neither warranted nor authorized by the process; (2) that the Al Tribble et al had an
ulterior motive or purpose in exercising such illegal, perverted or improper use of
the process; and (3) that damage resulted to the plaintiff Davis as a result of such
illegal act.” Sierra Club, Lone Star Chapter v. Cedar Point Oil Co. Inc., 73 F.3d
546, 577 (5th Cir. 1996). The ‘duty agent ‘allegations are fatally defective
because they fail to allege use of the process other than the mere institution of the
veterinarian, insult to injury, “playing games” i.e. obstruction of justice ,
trivializing Plaintiff Davis peril which was not improper. See In re Burzynski, 989
F.2d 733, 739 (5th Cir. 1993). Thus, as a matter of law, Plaintiff Davis has not
failed to state a claim for abuse of process upon which relief can be granted. C.
RICO Plaintiff claims and argues that Judge Werlein is going to err in dismissing
you from the prosecution of Plaintiff Davis RICO claims against the government
agents i.e. Al Tribble and private defendants on the basis of qualified immunity,
when it was Al Tribble deliberate act that gives Plaintiff Davis FIRST CHAIR,
based on the letter written by the Department of Justice, and YOU have NOT
earned the right to be a GOVERNMENT LAWYER and YOU have ABUSED
YOUR OFFICE . Government officials performing discretionary functions are
shielded from “liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate
‘clearly established’ statutory or constitutional rights of which a reasonable person
would have known.” Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 818 (1982) but Tribble
knew NOT to ask for the “booking documents” How ? Plaintiff Davis advises him
in a delusional and disjointed manner, and this is your chance to sell it to the
Judge – that you are innocent too. Plaintiff has been talking to this Judge since
2003 sometimes represented by counsel most of the time not. This Judge has
permitted his Plaintiff to file 27 post trial motions after a four day trial. This
Judge has commitment to public service and he is going to look at you and your
commitment to public service and this judge is going to make an inquiry in the
public interest due to his commitment to serve the United States of America and its
citizens a job that you are supposed to be interested in but you want to “play
games”. It is standard operating procedure to request the “booking
documents”. The district court will determine that Al Tribble is not entitled to
qualified immunity from the RICO claim because the Plaintiffs can show a
violation of statutory rights secured by RICO. Specifically, the district court WILL
reasoned that “[t]he FBI agent IS liable for RICO violations in the performance of
their duties BUT there can be no RICO claim against federal officials on account
of their alleged official misconduct,” citing McNeily v. United States , 6 F.3d 343,
350 (5th Cir. 1993). The holding in McNeily , which held that the FDIC cannot be
sued under the RICO statute because the FDIC, as a federal agency, is not
chargeable, indictable or punishable for violations of state and federal criminal
provisions. See id., relying on Berger v. Pierce, 933 F.2d 393, 397 (6th Cir. 1991).
Had the Plaintiffs named the FBI as a defendant to this suit, the district court
would have been on firm ground in dismissing RICO claims against that federal
agency based on McNeily. However, McNeily does not support the grant of
qualified immunity to the FBI agents or to the private individuals who acted at the
direction of John M. O’Quinn just like those ‘attorneys’ at the Texas Attorney
General Law Enforcement Division , David Talbot, Karen Matlock et al who
accepted the setup letter of attorneys Larry Mayo and Leona Filis working
together to achieve one single purpose ; protect O’Quinn and his billion dollar
empire. However, if the defendants are entitled to qualified immunity on some
alternative ground, the district court’s may affirm a dismissal however doubtful
See Gulf Island IV, 940 F.2d at 952. In assessing a claim of qualified
immunity, Judge Werlein Jr. must determine whether: (1) the plaintiff Davis has
asserted a constitutional or statutory violation; (2) the law regarding the alleged
violation was clearly established at the time of the operative events; and (3) the
record shows that the violation occurred, or at least gives rise to “a genuine issue
of material fact as to whether the Al Tribble actually engaged in conduct that
violated the clearly- established law, by not requesting the “booking documents.”
Kerr v. Lyford, 171 F.3d 330, 338 (5th Cir. 1999). If Judge Werlein Jr. determines
that Al Tribble official’s conduct violated clearly established law, we address
whether that conduct was objectively reasonable. See Wren v. Towe, 130 F.3d
1154, 1159 (5th Cir. 1997). The Racketeering and Corrupt Organizations Act
RICO imposes criminal and civil liability upon those who engage in “a pattern of
racketeering activity” defined as “any act or threat involving” specified state-law
crimes, acts indictable under various specified federal statutes, and other federal
offenses. See 18 U.S.C. § 1961(1). Section 1964(c) allows a private party who has
been sustained damages from a RICO violation, to recover those damages. See 18
U.S.C. § 1964(c). And, you are aware even if you think it is delusional and
disjointed Plaintiff Davis herein alleges that the Government and private
defendants’ racketeering activities included mail and wire fraud, which are
included among the enumerated predicate acts or a RICO claim. See 18 U.S.C. §
1961(1). . In McNally v. United States, 483 U.S. 350 (1987), the Supreme Court
held that the mail fraud statute did not prohibit schemes that defrauded people of
their intangible rights to an honest and impartial government. Following McNally ,
Congress enacted 18 U.S.C. § 1346, 2 which, in one sentence, provided that “[f]or
the purposes of this chapter, the term ‘scheme or artifice to defraud’ includes a
scheme or artifice to deprive another of the intangible right of honest services.” In
1997, the Fifth Circuit, sitting en banc, held that, by enacting § 1346, Congress
intended to protect the intangible right of honest services from wire fraud schemes
by state actors. See United States v. Brumley, 116 F.3d 728, 733 (5th Cir. 1997)
(“fraud statutes cover the deprivation of intangible rights.”). However, prior to the
en banc resolution of Brumley, such rights were clearly established by the
enactment of § 1346. See id. At 736 (dissent) (“It is therefore incomprehensible to
us that the majority can conclude . . . that [§ 1346] reflects a clear statement of a
Congressional intention to protect the citizenry of a state from corrupt state
officials.”). Because the rights asserted by Plaintiff Davis are clearly established at
the time of defendants’ alleged acts, Judge Werlein Jr., will conclude and not err in
not dismissing Plaintiff Davis RICO claims. D. Supremacy Clause and State
Law Claims Plaintiff Davis has yet to bring state law claims for civil conspiracy,
invasion of privacy, interference with economic advantage and benefit, intentional
infliction of emotional distress, 3 and fraud and deceit. Plaintiff Davis contends she
is not on the ground that she is barred by the federal supremacy clause, even when
you argue Plaintiff Davis is delusional and makes disjointed comments, you make
consider that Judge Werlein understand the illusion of good government, the RICO
of John M. O’Quinn, and shares an understanding of his Plaintiff ‘disjointed ‘ from
Agent Ron Stern is YOUR FAULT, and know Plaintiff Davis is going to advise his
wife, United States Attorney Julia Stern, by facsimile, and she will have it by the
time you read this line. 4
The individual agents’ immunity from suit under Texas law is
the issue. The Attorney General has not certified under 28 U.S.C. §
2679(d)(1) that the agents acted within the scope of their employment
at the time of the events at issue, thereby substituting the United
States as defendant on those claims, see Gutierrez de Martinez v.
Lamagno , 515 U.S. 417, 420 (1995). This procedure is not challenged
but no doubt in “the game” the government is still working for
O’Quinn and you will and you have because you did not seek a
decision knowing the whole time Al Tribble did not request the
“booking documents” on purpose and you want to “play games” with
a former Special Agent in this case Ron Stern’s Federal Information
Source, where YOU waived YOUR rights to prosecute your friends
softly for public corruption crime and YOU know Plaintiff Davis is
requesting Judge Werlein to take it all, exclude you and – it is
The district court will not dismiss Plaintiff Davis state law
claims against the private defendants under the federal supremacy
clause. While this Court has not addressed the issue of whether the
supremacy clause preempts state law tort claims against private
defendants acting at the direction of the federal government, there is
some precedent to guide us and it is NOT disjointed. In Boyle v.
United Technologies Corp., 487 U.S. 500 (1988), the Supreme Court
considered the issue of whether the supremacy clause preempted state
law liability of independent contractors performing work for the
federal government. Under Boyle, state law may be preempted where:
(1) there is a uniquely federal interest and (2) there is a significant
conflict between federal policy and the operation of state law. See
Boyle, 487 U.S. at 504-05, 507.
The liability of private defendants for actions taken at the
direction of agents acting within their authority is a unique federal
interest. Private businesses and individuals provide invaluable
assistance as informants who provide evidence against law violators
or, as in this instance, lend credibility to FBI undercover
operations. If private businesses were not eligible for immunity from
state law claims arising from assisting undercover federal operations,
this would provide a major disincentive to assisting law enforcement
and would undermine the needs and interests of the federal
government. At issue then, is whether the federal policy conflicts
with the operation of state law. If the private defendants committed
what would have been illegal acts under state law at the direction and
control of agents acting within their authority, the operation of state
law would conflict with federal policy. In Hunter v. Wood, 209 U.S.
205 (1908), where state law conflicted with a federal court order, the
Court will not preclude a state law prosecution of a railroaded federal
information source who worked with another federal information
source both who worked with federal agents i.e. Ron Stern in this
case, and has made an offer of proof in the FAKE client documented
in the “CAPIAS” is not public corruption when the same ‘client’ was
used to high jack legal processes , government operations, waste,
fraud and abuse now under investigation at Texas State Auditor John
Keel’s Office pursuant to and in that order. Similarly, this Court has
suggested that federal immunity privilege should be extended to
preclude an action against a telephone company who assisted federal
law enforcement agents with wiretapping. See Fowler v. Southern
Bell Telephone & Telegraph Co., 343 F.2d 150, 156-57 (5th Cir.
1965). See also Connecticut v. Marra, 528 F. Supp. 381 (D. Conn.
1981) (holding that defendant working at direction of FBI was entitled
to federal immunity from state law prosecution). State law cannot
operate to impede individuals who have government authority and act
as is necessary and proper within that authority. See, e.g.,
Cunningham v. Neagle, 135 U.S. 1, 75 (1890). If the private
defendants acted in good faith by reasonably relying upon the
authority of government agents, their actions are shielded from state
law action. In this case, the private defendants, in good faith, did not
support the FBI’s undercover operation with credibility and
legitimacy attached to Special Agent Ron Stern (a turf war). There is
ample evidence that the private defendants acted maliciously or
attempted to derive personal gain from not assisting in the operation.
Moreover, the private defendants’ actions, consistent with the
apparent authority granted by the government agents, were objectively
not reasonable. Under the veil of apparent authority, the private
defendants had ample reason to believe that their actions were illegal
or would cause injury to Plaintiff Davis and her witnesses. Thus,
Plaintiff Davis state law claims against the private defendants are not
barred by the supremacy clause.
You are not authorized to argue that the district court erred in
finding that Plaintiff Davis FTCA causes of action and Bivens claims
are not barred by the statute of limitations. The district court will
not err in holding that Plaintiff Davis Bivens claims are not time
barred, and you nevertheless affirm the those claims on the basis of
qualified immunity when you “play games.”
The FTCA applies a two-year statute of limitations from the
accrual date of the cause of action. See 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b). A cause
of action accrues, under federal law, “when the plaintiff knows or has
reason to know of the injury which is the basis of the action.” See
Moore v. McDonald, 30 F.3d 616, 620-21 (5th Cir. 1994). The
plaintiff's knowledge of the injury depends on two elements: (1) the
existence of the injury; and (2) the connection between the injury and
the defendant's actions. See Piotrowski v. City of Houston, 51 F.3d
512, 516 (5th Cir. 1995). After carefully reviewing the veterinarian
comments Plaintiff Davis would ask Judge Werlein Jr. to permit a
PLAINTIF FIFTH Amended Complaint, concluding Lindy filed the
first one, Jerry S. Payne filed the second one, Plaintiff Davis sued
O’Quinn and that is the Forth one, Beverly Thompson and Plaintiff
have sought Declaratory Relief and that is the fifth one , and this is the
Sixth one, and that Plaintiff Davis et al claims for assault, false
imprisonment, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and
invasion of privacy are NOT barred by the statute of limitations. They
rest on allegations of events that occurred in with Special Agent Ron
Stern and Plaintiff Davis, and have been presented more than two-
years after the events giving rise to the ongoing and continued
complaint, and Judge Werlein is correct in NOT dismissing them,
and Judge Hitter is not correct for trying to dismiss Plaintiff Davis
Judge Werlein Jr., is holding that Plaintiff Davis et al and (the
class action claims) i.e. Bivens claims for due process and Fifth
Amendment violations are not barred by the statute of limitations.
Under Bivens, a person may sue a federal agent for money damages
when the federal agent has allegedly violated that person's
constitutional rights, not asking for the “booking document” when
advised to do so by Plaintiff Davis, and not following procedure in
seeking to “booking documents”. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Named
Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388 (1971). A Bivens
action is controlled by the applicable state statute of limitations. See
Alford v. United States, 693 F.2d 498, 499 (5th Cir. 1982) (per
curiam). This Court, applying Texas law, has held that the statute of
limitations period on a Bivens claim is two years. See Pena v. United
States, 157 F.3d 984, 987 (5th Cir. 1998). Plaintiff Davis became
aware that he had been injured by the Defendants’ alleged violation of
his constitutional rights on 12:26 PM November 23, 2009 when the
FBI agents revealed to her that she needed to see a doctor had been
expending her time and energy in furthering the deceptions of FBI
Agent Ron Stern, rather than the government’s business interests.
Likewise, the pleadings herein allege that the FBI revealed the
undercover scheme to Plaintiff Davis on November 28, 2009 when
Ramon Viada sent a police officer to kick in Plaintiff Davis front door
at 25311 Sugar Valley Lane, Spring, Texas 77373. However, Judge
Werlein Jr., will find nothing in the record that establishes when
Plaintiff Davis was made privy to this information she did not act in
the government’s best interest because she always tells Judge Werlein
Jr. EVERYTHING! Judge Werlein will affirm and hold that
Plaintiff Davis et al Bivens claims are not barred by Texas’ two-year
statute of limitations, but will find that you unable to argue the district
court not dismissing Al Tribble and Don Clark from Plaintiff Davis
Bivens claims on statute of limitations grounds other than the usual
lying, and misrepresentations in litigation, and considering Judge
Werlein knows about Judge Sim Lake YELLING AT YOU, “as a
precautionary matter and out of an abundance of caution” you best
dial up your ‘friends’ attorney Lori Gillespie and Ken Wall and
process Plaintiff Davis a check for policy limits, have the check for
damages ready to present to Judge Werlein Jr. and quit “playing
games” in a “Federal Court” case where you have no place on the
“game” board or in the “playpen”.
Although neither the pleadings, herein are coherent to YOU the
Judge Werlein will order the briefs develop the analysis, it is obvious
that Al Tribble et al defendants do not have a qualified immunity
defense to the Bivens claims. Therefore, in the interest of judicial
economy, Judge Werlein Jr., will not dismiss Plaintiff Davis Bivens
claims on that alternative ground. See Gulf Island, IV, 940 F.2d at
952. “Governmental officials performing discretionary functions are
shielded from liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct
[does] not violate clearly established statutory or constitutional rights
of which a reasonable person would have known.” Wyatt v. Cole, 504
U.S. 158, 166 (1992). Plaintiff Davis Bivens claims are not bottomed
on defendant Al Tribble et al violations of Plaintiff Davis
constitutional due process rights. Judge Werlein court has not
addressed the particular issue presented by this case: the specific
limits on federal agents’ authority in undercover operations and their
continued turf war i.e. Ron Stern (Justin Fox) commitment to
prosecute public corruption versus Al Tribble Don Clark et al to be
paid ( public money) to cover up public corruption. The district
court will find no limits on the power of federal agents operating
under cover, reasoning that if Plaintiff Davis is allowed to pursue
state law causes of action it would “effectively stop” unauthorized
federal undercover operations because, “by their very nature [ they]
seek to invade the privacy of those who violate the law.” The district
court will say use legal authority, that “[t]he constitutional structure of
our federal system does permit private litigants to police federal law
enforcement activities by asserting state law claims against federal
law enforcement agencies or their agents who play games with other
agents “federal information source.” The district court will not err in
this regard and you asked the wrong question and reached the wrong
conclusion. The Judge will ask whether it was constitutionally
permissible for federal agents to inflict damages on innocent non-
targets during an undercover operation and refuse them
compensation or assistance. Because the Fifth Amendment due
process guarantee against conscience-shocking injury imposes clear
limits on law enforcement conduct, Judge Werlein will conclude that
it was neither necessary nor proper for the Al Tribble on November
23, 2009 at 12:23 PM in this case to destroy the lives and businesses
of innocent non-targets in the name of law enforcement, nor is the
dispatching a one man mission to arrest Plaintiff Davis on November
24, 2009. Pretend you do not know “The touchstone of due process is
protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.”
Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539 (1974) it is your job on the line
because you want to “play games” with Plaintiff Davis. The Due
Process Clause was intended to prevent government officials from
“playing games” abusing their power or employing it as an instrument
of oppression. See Collins v. City of Harker Heights, Tex., 503 U.S.
115, 126 (1992). The cognizable level of executive abuse of power is
“playing games” and then it is “total police power” that which
“shocks the conscience,” violates the “decencies of civilized conduct”
or interferes with rights “implicit in the concept of ordered liberty.”
Rochin v. California, 342 U.S. 165, 209-210 (1952). Obviously, this
guarantee of due process protects citizens against deliberate harm
from government officials See Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S. 327, 331
(1986) is a delusion and or a disjointed conversation. Allegations of
lesser culpability have been held adequate to state a claim in some
circumstances. For example, deliberate indifference suffices to impose
due process liability when government actors fail to provide adequate
care for pretrial detainees with serious medical needs. See Hare v.
City of Corinth, 74 F.3d 633 (5th Cir. 1996) (en banc) and you said
Plaintiff Davis needed a ‘doctor ‘and ‘medicine” when YOU know
Plaintiff Davis testified the best medicine for Section 1983 and other
constitional deprivations was an attorney like Jerry S. Payne (unless
Cher Barron deleted that testimony on her wave digital recorder)
However, harm inflicted due to government actors’ simple negligence
is categorically beneath the threshold of constitutional due process.
See Daniels, 474 U.S. at 328. The Supreme Court recently provided a
road map for navigating mid-level-culpability due process claims. In
County of Sacramento v. Lewis , 523 U.S. 833 (1998), parents of a
motorcycle passenger killed in a high-speed police chase brought a 42
U.S.C. § 1983 action against the officer and governmental agencies
involved, alleging deprivation of their decedent’s substantive due
process right to life. Lewis, 118 S. Ct. 1708, 1712. The Supreme Court
rejected the plaintiff’s contention that proof of deliberate indifference
by the officer would be sufficient to establish a due process violation.
Id. at 1711. “A police officer deciding whether to give chase must
balance on one hand the need to stop a suspect and show that flight
from the law is no way to freedom, and, on the other, the high-speed
threat to everyone within stopping range, be they suspects, their
passengers, other drivers or bystanders .” Id. at 1720. Analogizing
the circumstances of a police chase to the situation of officers called
on to quell a prison riot, the Supreme Court held that “‘[a] deliberate
indifference standard does not adequately capture the importance of
such competing obligations, or convey the appropriate hesitancy to
critique in hindsight decisions necessarily made in haste, under
pressure, and frequently without the luxury of a second chance.’” Id.
at 1720, quoting Whitley v. Albers, 475 U.S. 312, 320 (1986). The
court went on to distinguish situations where mid-level fault was
sufficient to impose liability. For example, liability for deliberate
indifference to inmate welfare rests upon the luxury enjoyed by
prison officials of having time to make unhurried judgments, upon the
chance for repeated reflection, largely uncomplicated by the pulls of
competing obligations. See Lewis, 118 S. Ct. at 1720. “When such
extended opportunities to do better are teamed with protracted failure
even to care, indifference is truly shocking. But when unforeseen
circumstances demand an officer’s instant judgment, even precipitate
recklessness fails to inch close enough to harmful purpose to spark the
shock that implicates ‘the large concerns of the governors and the
governed’” Id., quoting Daniels v. Williams , 474 U.S. at 332 when
you and your agents behave in a delusional fashion a remedy is
requested that Judge Werlein Jr., get you some medicine too located
at the infirmary at the “Federal Court” detention center and that you
do not pass “Go” i.e. the Exit sign at the Federal Court House but go
straight to jail. Applying the Lewis analysis to the FBI’s alleged
activity in this case, Judge Werlein will conclude that the FBI made
decisions which harmed the Plaintiffs after ample opportunity for cool
reflection. In fact, they invested almost years and thousands of man
hours in developing the sting operation attached to the name of
DEPARTMNET OF JUSTICE FEDEAL BUREAU OF
INVESTIGATON SPECIAL AGENT RON STERN ET AL. Thus,
the due process clause protects the Plaintiff Davis from any harm that
arose from the officers and Agent Al Tribble et al including you and
your deliberate indifference. The facts, as pleaded, establish at least
that level of federal agent culpability as Special Agent Ron Stern
Operation on Public Corruption – 062 where he armed Plaintiff Davis
with a government tape recorder evolved into a disaster at your office
but a windfall for the “probe’ attached to Special Agent Ron Stern
where Stern and Judge Werlein snag a bounty for the RICO Victims
and Texas; as it should be. Therefore Judge Werlein Jr., will hold
that Plaintiff Davis allegations that federal agents inflicted damages
on him, an innocent non-target, during this particular undercover
operation and refused her assistance and compensation states a claim
under Bivens . However, because Judge Werlein will address today
for the first time the parameters of due process protections afforded
innocent third parties injured by law enforcement sting operations run
amok, ( the Estate of Melinda Honerkamp , the estate of Marvin Leo
West, the estate of Susan Carol Sherman, Al Johnson, Beverly
Thompson, Joe Olson and the other RICO victims, now including
adult children ) and because the Supreme Court’s language that drives
our analysis appeared in a case decided in 1998, Plaintiff Davis can
say that the due process rights claimed by Plaintiff Davis ( and
Melinda Honerkamp when she sued Judge William M. “Bill “ Elliot)
were clearly established during 1992-94. See Lewis, 523 U.S. 833.
Judge Werlein will therefore affirm Plaintiff Davis Bivens claims on
the alternative basis of qualified immunity. Based on the foregoing,
get me my check for policy limits today and allow me to speak to
Agent Ron Stern because Judge Werlein when I request it , will affirm
Plaintiff Davis and not dismiss her Section 1983 law suit.
The Duty Agent i.e. Randy i.e. veterinarian suggesting
medication, hospitalization if proper for YOU to have conveyed
to Plaintiff Davis, YOU should have filed a proper motion in
court to “handle “ the federal information source instead of
“playing games” to protect attorney Ramon Viada from lying
and withholding in a ‘federal investigation’ or trying to
intimidate the “federal information source”. Judge Sim Lake
told “the federal information source” (and Beverly Thompson)
to file a complaint on the United States Attorney, we did not
know it was you. With the threats made on my life and false
arrest of Arvin Leo West, the ‘authorized’ activities of your
ATF division, i.e. Ronnie Holley (and Cheryl Yates Webb)
when the “federal information source” was making her first
attempt to vacate the corrupted verdict obtained by lawyer
misconduct i.e. Racketeering, your “contract’ and your silly
little “game” detected with Mary Docherty et al and the
undercover private investigator. Your ‘Duty Agent’, Rick
( the ‘Veterinarian’) clearly has ‘credible’ information but
not related to the 878 pages of documents Andrew Duffin
downloaded to the State of Texas Computer for attorney
Warren Tom Harrison, that was discovered in the Brazos
County case that “Lindy” filed against Sandstone Center and
‘Dr.’ John Vernon Kin Ross Wright that “connects the dots” to
attorneys Barbara W. Palmer, Richard Sewell along with
O’Quinn and attorney Charles Soechting to this “vast
government conspiracy” where you occupy a fanciful notion
and play games in your busy practice that a DOJ “federal
information source” under Special Agent Ron tern is going to
let you PROFIT from the murder of another “federal
information source” and any further concealment of the
HUB, John M. O’Quinn.
Judge Werlein Jr., suggested settlement but the
‘government lawyers’ want to measure the damage to a “federal
information source” by the Texas Double Standard. US Julia
Stern says “I do not want anything to happen to you”; expert
Charles Dean Huckabee “lawyers lie” is it you are her we will
see in “Federal Court” because this motion is live under a Rule
60 (b) (6) and armed with Declaratory Relief request and you
want to play games . This motion i.e. ticket to the game is not
be a waiver of any privilege or statutory protection applicable
to the material and or information Plaintiff Davis has requested
and previously requested. Finally this Motion for Sanctions
and a request (to amend Plaintiff Davis original complaint)
is in compliance with rule 5 and 11 of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure has been satisfied. Should you have any
questions in this regard, call me otherwise; I will see you at the
“Federal Court”; your office cannot be trusted with matters of
truth and justice explaining why Judge Sim Lake in court told
Plaintiff Davis and Beverly Thompson to file a complaint on
the United States Attorney Office. Please extend the complaint
process to former United State Attorney Lawrence D. Finder as
I have clearly stated in my disclosures and other supporting
sworn motions connected to the case before Judge David
Hittner, did not have jurisdiction. Your Department authorized
this Section 1983 court case a long time ago based on the false
police reports of officer Defendant Robert LaRouax, and the
withholding of attorney Ramon Viada i.e. the “booking
documents”, and again requested is your SWORN response
why THE HOUSTON FBI OFFICE – AGENT AL TRIBBLE,
did nothing to save Lindy’s life, but will spend millions of
public money to protect the RICO of John M. O’Quinn. Be
prepared for voir dire and an inquiry why the ‘O’Quinn” Law
Firm was excused from this particular exercise the “Touhy
letter” and the other exercise you have decided in violation of
the Texas Rules of Professional Conduct, when attorney Lin
Wood subpoenaed Mr. Don Clark and all those favors Mr.
John M. O’Quinn talks about under oath he does for the FBI, be
sure you bring that “Touhy letter” agreement to court when
Don Clark testified in the Anna Nicole case; Judge Werlein is
going to ask you for it and requested is to give Judge Werlein
Jr., total control when Judge Dagget took the Corvette, in
violation of the Judicial and Professional Rules of conduct just
Judge Squiers and Bill Elliot. Plaintiff Davis must be stupid
not to have looked at you and how you and the ‘duty agent’
play games in a “Federal Court” case and its “Due Course”
where what Plaintiff Davis says it is YOU which is disjointed,
delusional and requiring medication adjustment, in the Federal
Detention Center and where you and the “federal information
source” diverge based on Albert M. Robert Moskowitz, Chief
Criminal Section of the United States Department of Justice
letter for PLAINTIFF DAVIS to prosecute this Section 1983
case, and the next thing I am going to ask you is how do you
know ‘agent’ Batista, and to promptly respond to requests,
concentrate on identifying main files in the Central Records
System at FBI Headquarters( emphasis added).
In the end Plaintiff Davis decided to follow the Department of Justice letter
about filing a civil suit on the chance that she could be restored for something like
frivolous charges attached to the illegal disseminations of government data bases
as documented in the “CAPIAS” and connected to the O’Quinn Law Firm et al
and his “vast government conspiracy” and you are aware Plaintiff Davis is
directed to follow protocol and speak with the Department of Justice veterinarian
i.e. duty agent and following the instruction directed to Plaintiff Davis that,
theoretically, could prevent me from bringing future suit against the agency, and
discover finally if agent Ron Stern, his wife, Julia Stern for playing a game with
Plaintiff Davis. Basically, when submitting to a federal judge a motion to file a
civil suit against any federal agency, that judge first, before any discovery
processes or otherwise occurs, must deem whether the civil suit is worth pursuing;
if the judge finds the request frivolous, he or she can apply a variety of
punishments to the plaintiff, known as sanctions. Sanctions can be monetary fines
and can also contain other specific directives solely at the discretion of the judge
such as banning the plaintiff from ever filing future suit against the agency in
question, but in this case the Department of Justice directed me to protect my legal
right and now you want to “play games”. Requested sanctions, and a disclosure of
your investigation connected to Plaintiff Davis where I have requested the former
FBI Agent Ron Stern to come to court in a Section 1983 civil lawsuit. Where,
when, what, why, and what role has supposed mental illness played, especially as a
tool employed by the investigation itself in its goal of discrediting Plaintiff Davis
attempts to gain information regarding the investigation and be paid damages. You
ignore the evidence of retired FBI Agent Justin Fox’s named in a reckless manner
and requested is you explain that too when you tender the TML policy limits and
do not come to court without my check to be paid for damages in your silly little
game to protect John M. O’Quinn and his FAKE client to exact harm i.e.
RETALIATE on Ron Sterns criminal investigation.
25311 Sugar Valley
281-350-2943
Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Federal Bureau of Narcotics,
403 U.S. 388 (1971). Added by Pub.L. 100-690, Title VII, § 7603(a),
Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4508. is bringing separate claims for
intentional infliction of emotional distress. The claims brought pursuant to
Texas state law are addressed here. The causes of action seeking relief
under the Federal Tort Claims Act are discussed above the game is over.
It is not clear from the record before Plaintiff Davis and the question need
not be reached whether Plaintiff Davis state law claims are governed by
the Texas two year statute of limitations, Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code
Ann. § 16.003 or the four year statute of limitations, Tex. Civ. Prac. &
Rem. Code Ann. § 16.004. See Williams v. Khalaf, 802 S.W.2d 651, 658
(Tex. 1990). Plaintiff Davis and Thompson et al are bringing
additional Bivens claims based on violations of their rights and the other
RICO victims and seek to consult with an attorney during their encounters
with agents. Thompson et al has made a clear allegation that she suffered
similar violations by her signature below and;
Davis & Thompson emphasize at the outset that the legitimacy of the
operation vis-a-vis those who violate the law, i.e. the targets of Ron Stern’s
PUBLIC CORRUPTION PROBE is a BIG issue in this law suit and the
request for Declaratory Relief and for Judge Werlein to “catch all “ of the
MONEY. Because it is a legitimate windfall for the Ron Stern probe- and
that IS HOW YOU ARE INTENDED TO PLAY THE GAME – SO THE
United States wins and the State of Texas wins – Davis and Thompson
about your ‘friends’ – Game over and Lindy told you repeatedly “Paybacks
are hell” and now that Al Johnson lived to tell Judge Werlein Jr. about the
“game” when Cheryl Yates Webb became a ‘private investigator’
undercover due to the delivery of criminal evidence connected to Carla
Roberson Cummings the poster child of lying and the dots are connected to
the Right Hand Man ex-Texas DPS trooper attorney Charles Soechting Mr.
O’Quinn’s “stalwart partner” who is now screaming, and reported by
Carolyn Logan is Soechting is going to shut Plaintiff Davis down , the
question is where because he does not have a chance in “Federal Court” and
its “Due Course” is set on him and Professor Treece the ‘applicant’ when
they “play games” with Judge Werlein Jr. knowing full well Judge Werlein
Jr. rules Judge Mike Wood of Probate No. 2 and that Judge Wood as a
precautionary measure vacate his Order where he granted Gerald T. Treece
application to act as EXECTOR where a “Federal Court” in “Due course”
is going to absolve the same because of the reasons stated by Maria
Yolanda Lopez , assistant Harris County Probate No. 2 “ We do not listen
to the federal court , we do things our own way here” is simply not in
compliance with the law; well settled law and the game of John M.
O’Quinn is finally over, AND DO NOT EVER INSULT MY JUDGE
AGAIN is the message to ALL OF THE LAWYERS ! (Excluding attorney
Jerry S. Payne who knows better). Mr. Haman you and me – we are done ,
GOOGLE “RAMON VIADA” & visit the website dedicated to the Texas
Double Standard that you have worked so hard to protect , and then you are
well advised to seek the counsel of attorney Alla Petard
www.greatlawyer@ live.com this demand is what Alla says you are
Legea privind organizările corupte influențate și corupte
Imunitate calificată
Bivens V. Șase agenți numiți necunoscuți
Documente similare cu Attorney Haman William November 27, 2009 About December 18 2008
United States v. Richard A. Davis, 576 F.2d 1065, 3rd Cir. (1978)
Montaner vs Sharia District Court Digest
Charles A. Hickmann and Phyllis C. Hickmann v. Gregory Wujick, as Assessor of the Town of Huntington, 488 F.2d 875, 2d Cir. (1973)
US Department of Justice Official Release - 02413-07 crm 059
Arizona Attorney Rachel Alexander Suspended Related to Her Work With Sheriff Joseph Arpaio
Lohse v. Chater, 10th Cir. (1997)
Leroy J. Smith Georgette Beckon Marcia T. Smith, Individually Valise C. Matthews, Individually, on Behalf of Themselves and All Others Similarly Situated v. John G. Berg Columbia National Incorporated First Town Mortgage Corporation Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc., Through Its Subsidiary, Countrywide Home Loans, Inc. Fidelity National Financial, Through Its Subsidiary, Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of Pennsylvania Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of Pennsylvania Columbia National Incorporated, First Town Mortgage Corporation Countrywide Credit Industries, Inc. Fidelity National Title Insurance Company of Pennsylvania, United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, 247 F.3d 532, 1st Cir. (2001)
United States v. Connolly, 341 F.3d 16, 1st Cir. (2003)
Forte v. Rosenfeld, 1st Cir. (1992)
Ventura vs Militante - 63145 - October 5, 1999 - J. Puno - First Division.pdf
Speed Distributing Corp. v Court of Appeals- 425 SCRA 691
McCray v. Rodriguez - Document No. 4
Uson Succession
Property Case 1 8
Win Woodie
158215-1916-Dumasug_v._Modelo
2 Human Relations
Hyatt v. Goldstar
serveint
Mai multe de la carolanndavis1983
Probate Courts Docket Sheet - John M. O'Quinn
DA Harris County Ben Plaut Got It
Woods Diagram Figure 1 Lindy Flow Chart
October 20 Alphonse
Karen D. Matlock 115 F3d 348 Millar v Houghton
Ramon Viada and John M.O'Quinn Vast Govt Conspiracy to Deny Due Process
Public officers: Traps of the unwary 2006 by Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott
Deposition of Daniel Terronez in Fatal Shooting of Albert Gutierrez
OR200815331 TML Lor Gillespie Visions of Guns - Here the OAG Protects the FAKE Client Again
Constable Ron Hickman Nov 25, 2009
Counterfeit Client Dev for O'Quinn
Claims and Parties Frequently Change Over the Life of a Lawsuit, THANK YOU DAVE and THANK YOU RAMON 'STUPID ' VIADA .
December 28, 2009 to Texas AG About Texas Civil Rights Project 2 09 CV 00296 SDTX Corpus Christi
Rule 11 2009 November DOJ Attorney William D. Haman
Or 200712321 Sept 21 2007 Denton and Navarro for City of Jersey Village to Cover Up the FAKE Client
briefing a cases.docx
Agriculture Law: 03-05
RPX Criminal Complaint
7 Sale of Goods
Garcia v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 169005, January 28, 2013
State of Georgia v. KKK.pdf
The Real Notes
Notice: Securities: Suspension of trading&#8212; Host America Corp.
Inland Realty vs. CA, 273 SCRA 70 - CD
Kimberlin v NBC Res Hoge W M2D (OCR) (Redacted)
Essay Exams - 2
David Hunt v Times Newspapers Ltd
Bernard G. McGarry v. William E. Riley, Special Agent, Intelligence Division, Internal Revenue Service, 363 F.2d 421, 1st Cir. (1966)
19, 77, 135
#9 Martinez v. CA
123-Central Azucarera Don Pedro vs. C. de Leon, Et.al.
Secondment Agreement - Rev26Mar15_Final
The Value of a Lis Pendens
COMPILED CASES - PUBCORP FEB 12 edited.docx
Cris Juan Miguel Nacpil